Jean Fuller kept on a Senate Republican leader

Good morning. Happy Hump Day. 

Senate Republicans in Sacramento unanimously re-elected Jean Fuller as leader on Tuesday. The Bakersfield Republican has led the caucus since August 2015. 

Last month, Chad Mayes, the Republican leader in the Assembly, was also re-elected. Both Fuller and Mayes will be tasked with steering their caucuses through a particularly difficult time for California Republicans. 

The November election relegated Republicans in the Legislature to mostly the role of bombthrowers and bystanders. By gaining a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats can approve taxes and add constitutional amendments to the ballot without Republican support.

(Of course, that requires complete Democratic unity, which is often more elusive than it may seem at first glance.) 

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news: 

• “Close to 30 percent of the Bay Area’s residents aren’t able to make ends meet as they contend with high housing costs, suggesting poverty is more widespread in the region than official reports indicate, according to a study published Wednesday.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

• “After failing to pass new funding to tackle the state’s housing affordability crisis last session, two state senators are trying again. Sen. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose) have re-introduced legislation to add a $75 fee to real estate transactions, which is expected to generate hundreds of millions a year for low-income housing construction, and place a $3-billion bond to finance low-income housing before voters in 2018, respectively.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “California lawmakers will consider a proposal next year to block the state’s pension funds from investing in a controversial oil pipeline that is planned to cross North Dakota’s Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,” reports the Los Angeles Times. 

• “In brief remarks about the subject, Brown said Monday that it would be difficult for the U.S. to ‘go rogue’ on climate change. He went further Tuesday in a broadcast discussion with former Vice President Al Gore, predicting a ‘negative and very powerful’ backlash throughout the world should Trump continue to voice his denials and impede the environmental progress of the last eight years.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @gfolchi

“I am honored and humbled that my Republican colleagues have elected me to continue serving as Senate Republican Leader,” Fuller said in a statement. “I am committed and focused on issues that help Californians – jobs and affordability.”

Last month, Chad Mayes, the Republican leader in the Assembly, was also re-elected. Both Fuller and Mayes will be tasked with steering their caucuses through a particularly difficult time for California Republicans. 

The November election relegated Republicans in the Legislature to mostly the role of bombthrowers and bystanders. By gaining a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats can approve taxes and add constitutional amendments to the ballot without Republican support. (Of course, that requires complete Democratic unity, which is often more elusive than it may seem at first glance.) 

Fuller took the caucus’ reins from Bob Huff, who was forced from the Legislature by term limits in November. In fact, it was losing Huff’s seat, located mostly in north Orange County, that gave Democrats the supermajority.

Democrat Josh Newman, a political newcomer, defeated then-sitting Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, a Republican, to win the seat. 

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

While critics say they lack a definitive agenda, Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, who was elected in 2014 and chosen as leader just 10 months later, has been working behind the scenes to unite his caucus and build relationships on the other side of the aisle to fortify for the future.

There’s little room for error. They can only lose one seat and remain above super minority status — the difference between having the power to block tax increases on their own or not. Their troubles are compounded by the fact that voter turnout in presidential years typically leans Democrat. And presidential campaigns have a way of framing the narrative and stealing attention away from down-ticket races like state Legislature.

It’s not an easy spot for Chad Mayes, the Assembly Republican leader from Yucca Valley.

“We’re at the point now we’re thinking a lot more of that messaging is going to have to take place probably after November, to be able to tell folks what our agenda is and to begin rebuilding the brand,” Mayes told CalWatchdog on Thursday. “2016 is tough.”

It’s not that Mayes and his colleagues won’t be selling their ideas to the public — they’re going to have to if they expect to win elections. Instead, Mayes believes that most voters will chose based on the “strength of the candidates” as opposed to an automatic party preference, meaning they’ll rely on individual campaigns and not the Republican brand. 

“Our work outside the building is to continue to advance our principles, to be able to tell the folks that live here in California that our ideas are the ideas that are going to move California forward,” Mayes said. Mayes is confident Republicans will hold their seats, but was iffy about picking up many seats.

Mayes often speaks of the need to address poverty. The son of a preacher, having grown up in a Yucca Valley community of modest means, he points to exorbitant housing costs, gas prices and the fact that 40 percent of Californians live near or below the poverty line as a need for a new direction.

“Obviously, we’re not doing something correctly,” Mayes said of the overall direction of state policies. 

While Mayes has generally spoken in broad strokes about poverty, a few members of his caucus (including him) have introduced specific proposals. One provides additional funding for homeless youth centers, one expands the child tax credit and another funds grants to help underprivileged children do “normal” activities like buy prom dresses, attend summer camp and receive test preparation. And last year, the caucus introduced an entire education package. 

But is it enough?

The bunkered approach to 2016 and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for 2017 leaves the strategy open to criticism.

“If the Assembly Republicans have a distinct agenda, they have been quiet about it,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. 

Pitney noted the difficulties Republicans face in the Legislature dominated by Democrats, being handicapped by less resources than the majority party. Even if they labored over an exhaustive agenda, it’s possible no one would notice, said Pitney — a reflection of his own struggles in the mid 1980s as a House Republican staffer. 

Pitney likened Mayes to Jack Kemp, the former New York Republican congressman and vice presidential candidate, known for inclusivity and “bleeding-heart conservatism.”

“But as Kemp learned, it is very hard to make political headway with a conservative war on poverty,” Pitney added. “Many rank-and-file Republicans just are not interested.” 

On the other side of the rotunda

Life is no less difficult for Republicans in the Senate, who have even less of a margin of error in 2016, with no room to lose any seats. The Senate unveiled a package of bills earlier this week aimed at making life in California more affordable, with Leader Jean Fuller of Bakersfield making a similar pitch to Mayes.

On Tuesday, Fuller cited damning stats: CNBC ranked California the 5th most expensive state to live in the country in 2015, average monthly rent is 50 percent higher here than in the rest of the country, 40 percent of Californians are living at or near the poverty line and Californians have one of the highest tax burdens in the country. 

Legislating

According to Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Republicans in the Legislature face three legislative options. The first is to have an idea embraced by Democrats, which carries the bill to the governor’s desk. The other two are that the bill is dead on arrival or gets a hearing and then fizzles out. 

“There’s three outcomes, two of which are negative,” said Whalen, who served as chief speechwriter and director of public affairs for former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

Whalen pointed to a constitutional amendment in 2010 that reduced the two-thirds majority approval of a budget to just simple majority, stripping Republicans of an annual leverage point. 

“For a few weeks anyway, Republicans had a lot of relevance in the process,” Whalen said.

Whalen suggested Republicans focus on greater ethics rules as a way to engage in a value debate with Democrats, adding that Republicans should be holding press conferences pressuring Roger Hernández to take a leave of absence at least while under a court order to stay away from the West Covina Democrat’s wife amid domestic violence allegations, similar to the approach used by former Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich in the early 1090s.

Gingrich used both the policy-driven Contract with America and a focus on ethics issues — like Jim Wright’s book deal, the House banking scandal and the Barney Frank/male prostitute scandal — to make the argument that Democrats had become corrupted during decades of power and engineered the first Republican majority in 40 years. However, Whalen added, the numbers for Republicans in the Legislature are much further from a majority than what Gingrich had. 

“They made it a value debate against Republicans and Democrats,” Whalen said. “And I think Republicans need to introduce that conversation into Sacramento.”  

Whalen also suggested luring undecided voters with a greater focus on the University of California system — where one chancellor is mired in salary and spending troubles while a recent audit showed preferential treatment to out-of state admissions in an effort to bring in higher tuitions — including audits, hearings where chancellors explain their budgets and “completely turn the UC upside down.”

Mayes told CalWatchdog that individual Assembly Republicans had already adopted the UC issue, and added that it was Democrats’ responsibility to hold their members, like Hernández accountable. 

Politics

In general, the governor and the legislative caucuses are the main messaging arm of the state parties, making the Legislature that much more important when not occupying the Governor’s Mansion. But California Republican Party and legislative leaders shy away from a top down approach.

“Messaging in campaigns is important, but that messaging has to be delivered by the candidate or the elected officials of that party,” said Jim Brulte, chairman of the California Republican Party. “And that’s because voters vote for candidates not political parties. Political parties can be helpful with technical and financial support.”

Modern campaigns, particularly in a large, diverse state like California, need to be tailored to the district — voters in Torrance have different needs from voters in south Orange County. 

“One-size-fits-all messaging may have worked 30 or 40 years ago, but with the technology advances in the ability to micro target, this approach is stale and outdated,” Brulte said.

Brulte added that the Contract with America was pushed from members of Congress and not the Republican National Committee. Brulte said timing was crucial, noting it was unveiled merely six weeks before the midterm elections, when voters were paying the most attention to Congress.

“Other than specific messaging by individuals in the district they represent, a global messaging strategy during a hotly contested presidential election between the five remaining candidates is bound to get lost,” Brulte said.

Senate Republicans’ affordability agenda 

Good morning! Senate Republicans pitched their best policy proposals on Tuesday, which are aimed at making California more affordable. The package was largely tax incentives focused on education, savings and homeownership. 

Highlighting the high cost of living in CA, Senate Republican Leader Jean Fuller of Bakersfield cited damning stats: CNBC ranked California the 5th most expensive state to live in the country in 2015, average monthly rent is 50 percent higher here than in the rest of the country, 40 percent of Californians are living at or near the poverty line and Californians have one of the highest tax burdens in the country. 

And earlier this month, the American Legislative Exchange Council gave California one of the worst economic outlooks in the country. 

Despite the high cost of living, Republicans face the Sisyphean task of ushering these bills through the Democratically-controlled Legislature. They also declined to be specific on how the package would be paid for, arguing it was a matter of “priorities” instead.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Who was telling the truth at Monday night’s U.S. Senate debate? The Sacramento Bee fact checked it for us. The Bee also reports that candidate Loretta Sanchez, a Democratic Congresswoman from Orange County, says she’s open to relaxing federal regulations on endangered species if it means more water for Californians. 

• “Next month, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors appears poised to require pharmaceutical companies to oversee and pay for the collection and disposal of syringes and unused prescription drugs,” an effort to mitigate the health risks posed to trash handlers and others, according to CalWatchdog. 

• A Democratic assemblyman is looking to deregulate the taxi industry in order to make it more competitive with ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, reports the Los Angeles Times. 
• While a second batch of racist and homophobic text messages sent by a San Francisco police officer seems to be at odds with “the image of a rainbow-flagged city that prides itself on diversity,” many who have had run-ins with the police are not surprised, writes SF Gate/AP. 

Assembly:

• Full slate of hearings.

Senate:

• Packed Governance and Finance hearing, a few others. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @AdelleNaz @IWF

Jean Fuller, the Senate Republican leader, pointed to California’s high rents, high poverty rate and high tax burden as ills helped by these bills — a “first step” in helping make the Golden State more affordable. 

Fuller cited damning stats: CNBC ranked California the 5th most expensive state to live in the country in 2015, average monthly rent is 50 percent higher here than in the rest of the country, 40 percent of Californians are living at or near the poverty line and Californians have one of the highest tax burdens in the country. 

And earlier this month, the American Legislative Exchange Council gave California one of the worst economic outlooks in the country. 

“Senate Republicans united around a very positive agenda that gives voice to Californians being left behind by their own Capitol,” the Bakersfield Republican said. 

“There is no question that California has become a very expensive place to live,” Fuller added.

Fuller did not explain how the proposals would be paid for (nor did her office provide an estimate of how much the package would cost). Instead, Fuller said the government should focus on the “most disabled” and the “most vulnerable populations” as a top priority, adding that state revenues have increased steadily over the last few years. 

“If the priorities are carefully weighed, I think we do have enough money, especially when we’ve had extra resources come in in the last couple of years,” Fuller said.

Package of Bills

The 11 bills center on tax breaks and proposals focused on encouraging access to work, education and homeownership.

Access to work: One bill restores MediCal coverage for one free pair of eyeglasses every other year for those who fail the DMV vision test. Another bill provides $100 standard allowance for CalWORKs welfare-to-work participants, as well as an allowance for education costs. 

Education: One bill provides a tax deduction for college expenses, while another creates a sales and use tax holiday for school supply purchases. A third bill would create a tax deduction for education savings accounts.

Homeownership: There’s a renters tax credit, a bill to eliminate property tax inflation for senior and disabled veterans, and one that would do that same for senior citizens. There’s two proposals giving a property tax exemption for disabled veterans. And there’s a proposal to encourage a homeownership savings accounts that would help first-time homebuyers with a down payment.

Navigating the Senate

Unveiling an agenda at a press conference, however, is far easier than carrying the bills through the Legislature for a Republican caucus with virtually no power. They face a Sisyphean task of getting the bills through a Democratically-controlled Legislature, where they are a mere seat away from irrelevancy — below the dreaded one-third threshold. 

According to Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Republicans in the Legislature face three legislative options. The first is to have an idea embraced by Democrats, which could carry the bill to the governor’s desk. The other two are either the bill is dead on arrival or it gets a hearing and then fizzles out. 

“There’s three outcomes, two of which are negative,” said Whalen, who served as chief speechwriter and director of public affairs for former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

After voters amended the Constitution in 2010 to require only majority approval of the state budget (as opposed to two-thirds), Republicans lost a yearly opportunity to leverage legislation as their numbers in both chambers are only slightly above one-third. 

“For a few weeks anyway, Republicans had a lot of relevance in the process,” Whalen said, adding that now Republicans’ leverage is now mostly reserved for Constitutional amendments.

But there was also some eye-rolling. How could a governor who will be out of office in January 2019 possibly impose binding conditions on future chief executives and Legislatures beyond those established in AB32 and other emission-focused legislation formally adopted by the Assembly and Senate?

Now it turns out that the Legislature’s top attorney — Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine — shares this skepticism. Last week, state Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, released a letter by Boyer-Vine responding to her questions about whether Brown could change state law by fiat.

“We think the determination of a standard for the statewide (greenhouse gas) emissions limit is a fundamental policy decision that only the Legislature can make,” Boyer-Vine wrote. She noted that under state law, the Legislature couldn’t assign sole policy-making authority on the issue to the governor even if it wanted to.

The California Air Resources Board defended the legality of the governor’s order with a statement that didn’t address the specific legal points made by Boyer-Vine.

“While the 2020 limit is an important first step in measuring progress, climate change will not end in 2020 and AB32 explicitly states the intent to ‘maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020,’” a spokesman told the Sacramento Bee.

Echoes of D.C. fights — with one big difference

The emerging battle has crucial similarities to the fights over executive authority in Washington, where Republican lawmakers have backed lawsuits challenging President Obama’s orders on immigration, pollution and other issues. But one big difference is that the Sacramento scrum is over a policy area in which California’s legislative and executive branches are generally in sync: greenhouse gas reduction.

But an Associated Press story about Boyer-Vine’s opinion hinted at why Brown prefers a unilateral approach to either deferring to or working with the Legislature on a measure expanding upon AB32 a decade after its passage:

Overturning the executive order would be a blow to Brown’s effort to establish a legacy and a global identity as a crusader against climate change. …

While Democrats maintain overwhelming control of the Legislature, Brown would face difficulty winning legislative approval for his emissions targets. A group of moderate Democrats in the Assembly has sided with business interests against efforts by Brown and conservation groups to create stronger environmental protections.

“The Legislature should not advance the cap-and-trade program under this dark legal cloud,” said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.

Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León of Los Angeles, joined by representatives of the Service Employees International Union and its affiliates, announced the measure to raise the minimum wage each year until 2022 and 2023, with an “off ramp” in place to slow growth in the event of an economic downturn.

“It will help our entire state do much better for its citizens,” Brown said, calling the measure a matter of “economic justice.”

However, Monday’s announcement was merely an agreement between state leaders. The measure still needs to go through the Legislature before it can become law.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, who was not at Monday’s press conference, issued support in a statement afterwards and said a “significant number” of Assembly Democrats were on board.

Rendon also said he would have preferred a “more aggressive” path to $15 per hour, but said Monday’s deal was a “good middle ground.”

Things change

It wasn’t that long ago that Brown denounced a $15-per-hour minimum wage. During the unveiling of his budget in January, he estimated an increase of that size would saddle the state with an extra $4 billion in costs by 2021.

But Brown and de León conceded that a much more aggressive increase had already qualified for the November ballot, so legislators are wise to embrace the more “responsible” version they negotiated with labor groups.

“This is a very pragmatic decision,” said de León. “This was not made in a vacuum — there is a ballot initiative that’s already qualified.”

The measure would increase the minimum wage 50 cents per hour in both 2017 and 2018 and then raise it $1 per hour each year until it reaches $15 per hour in 2022 for employers of 26 or more employees and 2023 for employers or 25 or less employees. Following years would be tied to inflation.

The proposal gives the governor the annual power to pause the increase due to negative economic conditions.

Good policy?

There’s still a debate among economists as to whether the nominal gains to workers of an increase in the minimum wage are actually worth the costs to businesses, which will raise prices to absorb costs and potentially cut jobs (CalWatchdog wrote about this debate in greater detail earlier this year).

As it stands now, $10 per hour over a 40-hour work week comes out to $20,800 per year before taxes. With the increase of 50 cents per hour in 2017, minimum wage workers will make $21,840 per year before taxes, or around an extra $87 per month. At $15 per hour, the annual wage will be $31,200 in 2022.

The second 50 cent increase in 2018 would add $173 per month before taxes. The gains jump after two years to an increase of $1 per hour every year. The increase of $1 per hour in 2019 would come to an additional $347 per month, and so on.

However, many economists tie an increase in the minimum wage to inflation, so the gain to workers would likely not be as high as it seems now in terms of real dollars.

Lifting people out of poverty

The measure was repeatedly hailed on Monday as a strike against poverty. However, workers aren’t below the poverty line currently unless they are trying to support a family of at least four on only one minimum-wage income.

The federal poverty line is around $24,300 for a family of four, or $11,880 for an individual. The current minimum wage is nearly double the poverty threshold for an individual and just barely exceeds the threshold for a family of three on one minimum-wage income.

Skepticism

While the unveiling was all smiles between lawmakers and labor on Monday, the Republican leaders in both chambers were skeptical in statements that the measure would have a lasting impact on the working poor.

“Poverty reduction in California is extremely important,” said Senate Republican Leader Jean Fuller of Bakersfield. “Energy, housing and health care are cost drivers that we must address to make California more affordable. I am not sure how this new legislation moves the needle in improving California’s affordability.”

“This deal may help a small number of California’s workforce, but we are concerned that it will hurt many more by contributing to our state’s already high cost-of-living, making the California dream even less attainable for our middle class and low-income families,” said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley. “We have a responsibility to build a better, more affordable state for all Californians.”

Learn more:

• Minimum wage divides experts
• Years after CalWatchdog investigation, bill to end sub-minimum wage advances

Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, took the time to honor first responders from her district on Monday — even though legislators recognize honorable acts every day.

The 14 first responders honored on Monday all come from Hall Ambulance, which provides 90 percent of Kern County’s paramedic services.

Chris Parks helped resuscitated an infant who’d stopped breathing. Mark Gonzcar and Allen Swerdfeger received a call that a woman was choking and three minutes later were on the scene to get her breathing again. William Jaeger, Eric Castro and David Allard got a man’s heart beating again after finding him laying on the side of the road.

But for all their heroism, events like these are routine for first responders.

“This is everyday,” said Jason Achterberg, who, along with Adrianna Neal and Enrique Puente, saved a woman’s life who’d had a heart attack at her own retirement party. “It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last.”

Most of the calls are minor, and major life-threatening emergencies are only about 10 percent of the calls, admits Achterberg. But they receive about 10 to 12 calls on average during his night shift, which means they save a life about once a night.

Also honored were Terry Adams, Charles Brown, Keith Kinsella, Sean Tinnish and Lashika Britton for various individual awards.

“These first responders jump into action when we need help and protection,” Fuller said, noting her pride in honoring them with a Senate resolution. “They are some of the best of the best working in our Golden State.”

Monday’s ceremony is part of a greater effort by the California Ambulance Association honoring 50 paramedics, emergency medical technicians and emergency medical dispatchers statewide.

California’s oil industry is celebrating the defeat of a bill that would have placed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing — but warned that the fracking war is far from over.

Senate Bill 1132 by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, failed 18-16 on the Senate floor May 28. Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it, while three Democrats sat out the vote. The bill was reconsidered the next day, resulting in a loss of two more Democratic votes.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, sent out a congratulatory email to supporters last week:

“The legislation would have banned hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation technologies, putting existing petroleum industry jobs at risk and preventing the creation of potentially tens of thousands of others – not to mention depriving Californians of much-needed state and local tax revenues and enhanced energy security.

“Not surprisingly, anti-oil special interests who fed the public, the state Legislature, and media egregious misinformation about hydraulic fracturing and other oil extraction techniques have vowed to continue their efforts in Sacramento and throughout California’s local communities. WSPA will continue to push for common sense legislation that balances environmental protection with domestic energy security, job creation, and economic development.”

Mitchell: Big Oil ‘polluting for profit’

Mitchell did indeed vow to keep up the fight against an oil-and-gas drilling process that she believes pollutes the environment.

“[She] is proud of the bill’s successful journey in raising awareness around public safety, fossil fuels and environmental justice,” Mitchell said in a press release.  “Although the bill fell short of passage, she is confident that the movement to re-assess fracking, acidization and other well stimulation methods will continue to grow until the public’s concerns are thoroughly addressed.

“We have the momentum, this issue’s gone viral nationally, and it’s just a matter of time before the dangers of fracking prompt people to put it on pause until its safety can be established. When the impacts on the public of a for-profit endeavor are unknown, we try it out first in minority neighborhoods – assuming low vigilance and the need to bring in jobs makes safety irrelevant.

“But we’ve put big industry on notice: That ploy won’t fly forever. People’s neighborhoods aren’t fodder for fracking, environmental justice must come, and one day soon the vote to refrain from polluting for profit will prevail!”

State, feds: Fracking not a danger

But the California agency charged with oversight of fracking assures that more than a half-century of hydraulic fracturing in the country have shown it to not be an environmental danger.

“Hydraulic fracturing was first used in 1947 in a well in Kansas,” states the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. “Since then, hydraulic fracturing has become a regular practice to tap into previously unrecoverable reserves, or to stimulate increased production from existing oil or gas wells in the United States.

“In California, hydraulic fracturing has been used as a production stimulation method for more than 30 years with no reported damage to the environment.”

The Obama administration also has long depicted fracking as safe. In May 2013, at a news conference on draft rules for fracking on 700 million acres of federal land, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell defended the drilling process: “I know there are those who say fracking is dangerous and should be curtailed, full stop. That ignores the reality that it has been done for decades and has the potential for developing significant domestic resources and strengthening our economy and will be done for decades to come.”

SB1132 came hard on the heels of another fracking crackdown bill, SB4, which was approved by the Legislature last year and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. It increases regulations on fracking, including disclosure of the composition and disposition of fracking fluids to state regulators.

It also requires a study be completed by the end of this year on “the hazards and risks that fracking poses to natural resources and public, occupational, and environmental health and safety,” according to the bill’s legislative analysis. “No permits for fracking would be allowed to be issued after Jan. 1, 2015, unless the study is completed and peer reviewed.”

SB1132 would have extended that study an additional six months, and imposed additional governmental reviews before fracking could resume in the state.

Sharp disagreements in Senate floor debate

Democrats and Republicans debated the bill May 28 on the Senate floor.

“SB1132 puts a temporary moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and acidization until they are proven safe by an exhaustive study that looks at many of the concerns and complaints commonly made by the citizens who live and work near the oil fields,” said Mitchell.

She dismissed concerns about potential job loss, saying the oil industry claims that only a small minority of wells are fracked. And she cited media reports that the oil recovery potential of California’s Monterey Shale formation has been cut by 96 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“SB1132 simply calls for a ‘time out,’ if you will, a temporary moratorium pending verification that fracking and acidization methods are safe,” said Mitchell. “Along with many of you, I have no desire to increase our over-reliance on foreign oil. However, the safety of oil drilling is fundamentally an environmental justice issue that I believe we must view with great scrutiny.”

Jackson: No need to ‘frack, frack, frack’

She was backed by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, who said that fracking has caused earthquakes in Ohio and degraded water quality in Texas.

“There would be no harm in hitting the pause button and evaluating specifically and more independently what the impacts are of this process on our water quality, air quality, the public health of people in surrounding communities,” said Jackson. “There is no urgency to frack, frack, frack. Let us be cautious. Let us be circumspect. And let us have the information that we need in order to determine whether we should continue a procedure that has demonstrated negative results in other parts of the country.”

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said that 70 percent of Californians support a fracking moratorium. And he noted that other states have adopted moratoriums.

Two Republican senators representing inland valley areas pointed out that their districts are still suffering double-digit unemployment, which will worsen with this year’s drought.

GOP response cites economic potential, need for fuel

Sen. Tom Berryhill, R-Stanislaus, discussed a trip to North Dakota last year where the economic contrast could not have been more stark due to that state’s oil and gas drilling boom.

“It was mind-boggling,” he said. “There was ‘help wanted’ on every corner and every small business. It was a tremendous opportunity to get people back to work. This technology has the potential to create thousands of jobs and a second gold rush to the local economy in the state of California that we haven’t seen in years.”

Sen. Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, challenged Mitchell.

“Californians require 44 million gallons of gasoline a day,” said Fuller. “Our state refineries provide all of that gasoline, and they must be supplied with oil from somewhere. My question for the author is: What other methods or new technology does this bill propose to use to backfill the lost oil production in California? Tankers, rail, rationing or something that I don’t know?

Mitchell responded, “This bill does not propose to offer an alternative.” The time for that is if the study determines that fracking is unsafe, she added.

That did not satisfy Fuller, who said, “My area produces about 80 percent of the oil and gas. Most of those wells that are being fracked have been fracked for many, many years. Most of them are in an oil well footprint where there’s no groundwater underneath, there’s no residential houses nearby. And they haven’t had safety violations.

“I think that we’ll get [safe fracking] without having to suffer loss of jobs and tremendous economic upheaval in my area. Some of the small cities in my area have 30 percent unemployment now. We’re about to head into a drought in August, and that will probably double [unemployment], because the last time we had a drought there was 30 percent unemployment just from the drought. To have even a day’s loss of this work, which are very good wages and very good health benefits, is absolutely crushing for us.”

Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama, argued that Mitchell’s bill puts up so many obstacles to completion and certification of the study, that it would amount to a de facto ban on fracking.

“Would it affect the citizens of California?” he asked. “Absolutely. We cannot conserve our way to the future in either water or energy.”

Mitchell: You’re crying fire

Mitchell accused her bill’s opponents of being alarmists on the threat of lost jobs.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to cry fire in a crowded theater when we are unable to quantify the actual statistical job loss based on the narrow parameters of this bill,” she said. “We as policy makers have to make a very, very difficult, delicate decision: employment versus public health and safety. I appreciate the challenges many of the districts are experiencing. I hope you appreciate the challenges my constituents are facing who live in very, very dangerous close proximity to wells that are being fracked and where acidization is being used.”

Reheis-Boyd discussed in her blog her organization’s next steps, now that there has been a temporary truce in California’s fracking war:

“[The] defeat of Senate Bill 1132, legislation that would have imposed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation technologies, clears a path for a concerted and collaborative effort to fully implement new statewide regulations embodied in Senate Bill 4.

“The SB 4 regulations put into place a robust set of monitoring, disclosure, testing, land use and research requirements that ensure hydraulic fracturing in California is conducted safely and without harm to the environment. But there is still much to be done to finalize these new regulations, and the petroleum industry is going to be a constructive partner in getting them accomplished.

“For example, we are working with the State Water Resources Control Board and regional water boards to develop groundwater monitoring criteria and planning required by SB 4. Once finalized, these new requirements will give us the data necessary to demonstrate hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation technologies are not adversely impacting California’s precious water supplies.

“We are working with the California Air Resources Board and regional air boards to ensure air quality concerns are addressed as required by SB 4. We are working with the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources to develop the in-depth CEQA analysis of well stimulation operations also required by SB 4. And we look forward to the findings of the science-based study of hydraulic fracturing – yet another requirement of SB 4. …

“As Governor Brown has noted, close to a third of the new wells drilled in California are hydraulically fractured as a way to improve their productivity. These wells are an important part of California’s ongoing, conventional oil production that supplies 37 per cent of our daily petroleum needs. 

“The more than 100,000 men and women directly employed in oil production and transportation in California appreciate the Legislature’s support for the work they do and welcome the opportunity to move forward under the guidance of SB 4 regulations.”