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
»CMTA Staff
»Send us e-mail
»Directions to CMTA
»Rent Conference Room
Grassroots Activism
Sign up to receive action alerts
Warning: main(masthead.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /target/apacheweb/domains/cmta.net/htdocs/legweekly/100902.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/100902.php on line 15
Legislative Weekly
October 9, 2002
Last minute vetoes on controversial environmental bills
 Burton  Sher  Romero |
In his veto messages, the Governor states that he is willing to sign legislation next year that addresses the problems identified in these measures. CMTA agrees that more workable alternatives can be crafted to achieve the intent of these measures while minimizing economic fallout. This effort was initiated by the business community during this year's legislative session. On the electronics recycling front, there is an existing household hazardous waste program at the local level which is not tied to the General Fund and could be expanded to accommodate the growing stream of discarded electronics products. This approach would complement the ongoing efforts of manufacturers to minimize waste and facilitate recycling through product design and industry-sponsored recycling programs, and would not require a new state bureaucracy, which the Governor has clearly indicated is not the best solution for managing electronic waste. CMTA wholeheartedly agrees.
With regard to sacred sites, both sides agree that Native American tribes should play a role in making land use decisions affecting these sites. Whether or not CEQA is the appropriate vehicle, language offered by the business coalition on notification of affected tribes, mandatory consultation on mitigation measures and a more robust process for designating sacred sites, can serve as a template for a compromise measure. The Governor's veto message makes clear his desire that no single interest group should have disproportionate influence over land use decisionmaking. This policy should be a fundamental premise of the negotiations that Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency will initiate pursuant to the Governor's directive.
In addition to these measures, the Governor vetoed SB 1970 (Romero) which would have prohibited in-state disposal of any low-level radioactive material, except for naturally occurring radioactive material, above background levels. An Executive Order is attached to the veto message imposing a temporary ban on class III (municipal landfill) disposal pending adoption of a new regulation by the Dept. of Health Services establishing "dose standards for the decommissioning of radioactive materials by its licensees." CMTA views this action as a comprehensive response to issues raised both in SB 1970 and in SB 1444 (Kuehl D-Santa Monica), which would have arbitrarily and dramatically lowered the bar on cleanup levels for radioactive-contaminated properties. CMTA commends the Governor for taking a rational, science-based approach to concerns about the ultimate disposition of this material.
Demand response working group focuses on large customers
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has established a working group to develop demand response tariffs or programs for large customers. The Demand Response Working Group #2 held its first meeting on September 18. A second meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 11, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the CPUC auditorium in San Francisco.
The working group is part of the CPUC rulemaking on demand response and dynamic pricing (R.02-06-001).
The rulemaking will consider dynamic pricing rate design options such as real-time pricing (RTP) and critical peak pricing tariffs as well as the development of advanced metering infrastructure.
At the first meeting of the working group, participants discussed three conceptual approaches to a RTP tariff, and two demand bidding program proposals. The three RTP proposals include:
SDG&E’s Hourly Pricing Option
Customers receiving service under this tariff are billed for commodity energy by multiplying the customer's recorded hourly energy usage by the corresponding hourly price in effect at the time of consumption. The hourly prices are calculated and made available to customers by 5:00 p.m. the day before the prices are effective, based on published indices of energy prices. On-peak prices vary each hour, semi-peak and off-peak prices are an average price for the corresponding time-of-use period.
PG&E’s Energy Surcharge Proposal
This tariff would consist of a three-tiered system of daily price profiles (“low,” “medium,” and “high”). The price profiles would be established in advance, together with a specific allocation of the number of times each price signal would be applicable. This tariff would only be applicable to the three-cent “Energy Procurement Surcharge” established by the CPUC last year, and would not be applicable for direct access service. This approach seems more complicated than the SDG&E program, but less risky, since only a portion of the energy charge is at risk.
CEC’s RTP Proposal
The CEC proposal is based on the Georgia Power Day Ahead two-part RTP tariff. Departures of current load from a pre-determined customer baseline load profile are charged or credited using an hourly RTP signal announced prior to usage. Hourly prices are made available to the participant by 4:00 p.m. for the subsequent day. The customer baseline load is established using historic data from the same month of the previous year. A customer bill may include either a positive charge or negative credit in any hour as a result of usage departures from the customer baseline load.
CMTA has been advocating voluntary, two-part tariffs modeled after the Georgia Power two-part tariff, and appears to have prevailed inasmuch as it now appears the programs will be voluntary.
For additional information, or to provide input re the proposals, e-mail Joe Lyons
LAO report on state budget
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst recently released a final report of the California State Budget. The “California Spending Plan 2002-03” includes a complete and very detailed analysis of the $99 billion budget act that was signed by Governor Davis on September 5, 2002.
The Legislative Analyst's Office's (LAO) report focuses on California's state revenue decline and how the shortfall was addressed in the recently enacted budget. The LAO concludes: Although the (cited) actions addressed the budget problem for 2002-03, they did not eliminate the multibillion dollar underlying imbalance that currently exists between General Fund revenues and expenditures. This is because most of the adopted budget solutions are either one-time or limited-term in nature. In fact, some of the actions -- such as the special fund loans, borrowing, and net operating loss suspension -- will result in additional budgetary obligations in later years. Because of the relatively limited amount of ongoing savings incorporated in the 2002-03 budget package, the state will continue to face large multibillion shortfalls in 2003-04 and beyond, absent corrective actions.
Ergonomic bill vetoed
 Goldberg |
In his veto message, Governor Davis wrote: "California, as the only state in the nation that is successfully enforcing a regulation to address repetitive motion injuries, has proven itself to be a leader in the area of ergonomics. Our regulation is the result of significant debate, study and public comment, and represents a concerted effort to balance legitimate competing concerns regarding repetitive motion injuries." The Governor went on to write: “The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has received a petition requesting that it amend California's standard on repetitive motion injuries and I believe that the Board's consideration of that petition will allow for the best evaluation of the existing regulation as well as the relative merits of amending it. In an effort to allow that process to occur, I am returning this bill without my signature.”
CMTA applauds Governor Davis's veto, his recognition of California's leadership in trying to regulate repetitive motion injuries (RMIs) and his conclusion that AB 2845 is not needed. In addition, CMTA also believes that there is no need for the Standards Board to revisit the ergonomic issue at this time because there is no empirical evidence to indicate that the current standard is not working or is in need of repair.
California's ergonomic standard is still the most talked about regulation in the nation and is often referred to as the model. However, even after all these years, the regulation of RMIs remains controversial simply because there is a lack of scientifically based medical research as to what types of injuries should be considered a RMI. It becomes even more complicated when you consider the off-the-job habits of workers that may include a wide range of hobbies and psychological and psychosocial factors that can equal or even exceed the workplace as the primary cause of the RMI, given the very subjective symptoms that change from person to person.
There is also a distinct lack of consensus on what actions should be taken to remedy the problem. During the period the standard has been in effect, California has reduced the number of RMIs at a rate higher than the national average. No one knows for certain if it is a result of California's ergonomic standard. But, even more important, over the last seven years, California has steadily reduced the total number of injuries and the severity of injuries to well below the national average. CMTA beleives this is an even better indication of employers' commitment to employee safety. Nevertheless, organized labor and other proponents of more onerous ergonomics regulations believe that there is a virtual epidemic of RMIs occurring in the workplace. That is simply not supported by the statistical evidence.
The Cal-OSHA Standards Board unanimously adopted the current ergonomic rule because it provides a balanced approach based on over six years of advisory committee meetings, innumerable regulatory drafts, extensive public debates and several thousand pages of oral and written testimony. And later, when the standard was challenged, the 3rd District Court of Appeals found that the ergonomics standard was a "reasoned response to a vexing conundrum” and unanimously agreed that the Standards Board was correct to take a "middle of the road" approach aimed at minimizing workplace injuries caused by repetitive motion disorders, while at the same time not unduly burdening business with costly and unnecessary regulation. And now, the Standards Board has been petitioned to do this all over again.
California set the pace for regulating RMIs by approving the first such program in the nation. Given the lengthy time period and the protracted public debate with practically every interested person or party afforded the opportunity to participate, CMTA sees no reason to require the Standards Board to use their very limited resources to review a program that by all objective standards is working well.
The Standards Board is scheduled to meet on October 17 at the State Resources Building Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, at 11:00 a.m. The Board will take public comments on ergonomics during the opening Public Meeting session. CMTA, along with a coalition of employer representatives, plans to attend and provide comments to the Board. Contact Willie Washington at wwashington@cmta.net for more information.
Manufacturing fact
A sales-tax exemption on manufacturing equipment in Washington State resulted in $1.8 billion in new investments by manufacturers and 58,000 new manufacturing jobs during the first three years.
Talking point
California and its hard working families can't rely on sunny beaches and beautiful mountain ranges to attract and retain businesses. Neighboring states are luring companies away every month with lower costs and incentives. To stem the tide of job losses - 164,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2001 - we must lower the cost of doing business in California, now 32% higher than the national average.
to Leg Weekly Index