Informing & Monitoring » Capitol Updates » Leg. Watch » Press Releases » Leg Vote Record » CA Cost Index » Features » Audio & Reports » Job Data » Calendar » Coalitions » Fed Update  » Policy Objectives » Policy Principles Membership »Membership list »Invest in CMTA »About Us »Yellow Pages »Questions? »Join Committees »Advertise Services & Discounts »Group WC Program »Discount Programs »Training Directories CA Senate- - - - -AlquistAndersonBerryhillBlakesleeCalderonCannellaCorbettCorreaDe LeonDeSaulnierDuttonEmmersonEvansFullerGainesHancockHarmanHernandezHuffKehoeLaMalfaLenoLieuLiuLowenthalNegrete McLeodPadillaPavleyPriceRubioRunnerSimitianSteinbergStricklandVargas WaltersWolkWrightWylandYee CA Assembly- - - - - AchadjianAlejoAllenAmmianoAtkinsBeallBerryhillBlockBlumenfieldBonillaBradfordBrownleyBuchananButlerCalderonCamposCarterCedilloChesbro ConwayCookDavisDickinsonDonnellyEngFeuerFletcherFongFuentesFurutaniGainesGalgianiGarrickGattoGordonGorellGrove HagmanHaldermanHallHarkeyHayashiHernandezHillHuberHuesoHuffmanJeffriesJonesKnightLaraLogueLowenthalMansoorMaMendozaMillerMitchell MonningMorrell NestandeNielsenNorbyOlsenPanPereaPerezPerezPortantinoSilvaSkinnerSmythSolorioSwansonTorresValadaoWagnerWieckowskiWilliamsYamada »CMTA Staff »Send us e-mail »Directions to CMTA »Rent Conference Room Grassroots Activism Sign up to receive action alerts Already registered? Calendar »Full listing Committee meetings:  Feb. 9 Energy  Feb. 13 Corporate Counsel  Feb. 16 Government Relations  Feb. 23 Environmental quality  March 1 Tax  March 2 Labor Employment  March 7 CMTA Climate Change Advisory Committee  March 8 Energy  March 12 Corporate Counsel  March 15 Government Relations  March 20 Environmental quality Contact us at members@cmta.net

Warning: main(masthead.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /target/apacheweb/domains/cmta.net/htdocs/legweekly/100402.php on line 15 Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening 'masthead.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /target/apacheweb/domains/cmta.net/htdocs/legweekly/100402.php on line 15 Legislative Weekly October 4, 2002 Generators answer CPUC blackout report A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission concludes that most of the rolling blackouts that occurred between late 2000 and mid 2001 could have been avoided had the state’s five largest companies operated all of their available capacity. The CPUC report analyzed the operations, bids, generation, and transmission of electricity of the state’s five largest merchant generators-Duke, Dynegy, Mirant, Reliant, and AES/Williams-on the 38 days that California experienced rotating outages and service interruptions between November, 2000 and May, 2001. The report does not address whether merchant generators deliberately withheld power. According to the report, if the five generators had operated all of their available capacity during that time period, all of the blackouts in Southern California, and 65 percent of the blackout hours in the northern part of the state, could have been avoided. As for service interruptions, the report alleges that 81 percent of the service interruptions in Southern California, and 51 percent in Northern California, could have been avoided had the generators operated all of their available capacity. Generator Responses Duke Energy Dynegy Mirant Williams Energy Public Utilities Commission report (pdf file) Merchant generators emphatically deny the implication that they deliberately withheld power. Mirant Corp. said the report’s conclusions are “unsubstantiated and unfounded.” Duke Energy vigorously rejected the report’s conclusions, stating “strongly and without qualification that Duke Energy has consistently provided available generation to the California Independent System Operator in response to emergency requests.” Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Company, an energy marketer, said the report is “fundamentally flawed” and “fails to recognize the importance of issues such as ramp rates and environmental restrictions.” The Independent System Operator data used by the CPUC doesn’t take into account the physical operational limits of the generating units, including the fact that it typically takes several hours for these units to “ramp up” to full capacity. Environmental rules also impact the dispatch of generating resources. Local air districts impose limits on how many hours many of these units can operate, except during a stage 1, 2, or 3 emergencies when the rules are temporarily relaxed. Mirant also noted that all its plants were under "Reliability Must Run" contracts under the direct control of the ISO. The rolling blackouts and service interruptions adversely impacted the state’s economy, but especially impacted large, industrial customers, many of whom receive “non-firm” service, and are therefore first in line to be subjected to outages. The frequent interruptions that occurred in 2000 and 2001 caused severe hardship for many industrial customers, forcing many to shut down operations dozens of times, far more frequently than anticipated. The CPUC report is just the latest in many continuing investigations on the 2000-2001 energy crisis. CMTA urges all parties engaged in investigations to include all relevant facts and avoid over simplification and distortions. Unless we fully understand what went wrong in 2000 and 2001, we will not adopt appropriate solutions and we will be planting the seeds for the next crisis. Three bad Corporate Counsel bills vetoed Anti-SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation Motions Kuehl SB 789 (Kuehl D- Santa Monica) was a measure opposed by CMTA that would have placed restrictions on the use of California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. The Anti-SLAPP statute is a law designed to provide early, pre-discovery dismissal of lawsuits that attack the defendant’s exercise of some form of free speech. CMTA argued that SB 789 attempted to enact a wholesale denial of the ability of an entire class of defendants to protect themselves against a harassing lawsuit against those defendants’ constitutional rights of freedom of speech. SB 789 would have only encouraged harassing and vindictive lawsuits against the business community and we are pleased to see this bill vetoed. Governor Davis, in his veto message, expressed a concern that this legislation would unduly interfere with the court’s discretion. Online Privacy Simitian CMTA opposed AB 2297 (Simitian D-Palo Alto) which would have set the stage for state-by-state regulation of business internet websites. While this bill on its surface appears to require online businesses to clearly post and comply with their online privacy policies, the bill has been vague from its inception and remains incredibly unclear as to what entities are covered. Additionally, CMTA believes that this type of state-by-state regulation of the internet will only lead to a confusing patchwork of differing (and sometimes conflicting) internet privacy policies across the country. CMTA sought a veto of this legislation and we applaud the Governor for his veto of AB 2997. Employment Arbitration Burton SB 1538 (Burton D- San Francisco) was also opposed by CMTA and vetoed by Governor Davis. The measure would have prohibited arbitration agreements between employers and employees for claims of discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). CMTA believes that a better focus would be on attempts to genuinely improve arbitration rather than complicating or eliminating the ability to use it. Presumption of retaliation employment bill vetoed Koretz At the strong urging of CMTA and numerous other employer representatives, Governor Davis vetoed AB 2990 by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, (D-W. Hollywood). AB 2990 would have created a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the provisions of existing law were violated if an employer discharges, demotes, suspends, or reduces the hours of work or pay of an employee within 90 days after the employee has exercised his or her rights under the Labor Code. Under AB 2990, if an employee initiates a complaint under the Labor Code, it would establish a 90 day window in which certain actions by employers would be rebuttably presumed to be retaliatory and in violation of this provision. For example, the employer disciplines an employee for tardiness or absenteeism. The employee then files a complaint with the labor commissioner. After receiving the notice, if the employer, within 90 days, disciplines the employee, this bill would presume that the employer’s action was retaliatory and in violation of this provision. It would shift the burden of proof to the employer, who would then have to prove that the action taken was NOT in retaliation for the disciplinary action. CMTA also believed that AB 2990 would have violated the constitutional rights of employers to refuse to answer questions or give other evidence that would subject him or her to criminal penalties or prosecution. Since a violation of Section 98.6(b) of the Labor Code may be punished as a misdemeanor, the presumption of retaliation created by this bill is in conflict with the presumption of innocence that a person accused of a criminal offense is guaranteed. We are very pleased that Governor Davis vetoed the bill. ### to Leg Weekly Index