CLFP Bill Recap at Close of 2016 Legislative Session
As the 2016 California legislative session came to a close on August 31, several CLFP-opposed bills were defeated, while others moved forward to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature. Following is a recap of the highest profile CLFP-opposed bills that were still active in the session’s final two weeks. The Legislature is now adjourned until January 2017.
Bills Passed to Governor Brown:
The California Legislature moved swiftly in August to adopt legislation expanding climate change emission goals. SB 32 (Pavley; D-Agoura Hills) mandates that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) "ensure" that the state meets by 2030 a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. The bill offered no consideration of the economic impacts and does little to bolster legislative oversight in the future. A companion measure, AB 197 (E. Garcia; D-Coachella), was also passed. It creates the guise of regulatory accountability through the appointment of two non-voting legislative members to the Air Resources Board. Additionally, SB 32 authorizes the formation of a Joint Committee on Climate Change. Essentially, SB 32 and AB 197 have provided CARB with a blank check for implementing the post-2020 climate change goals. Neither SB 32 nor AB 197 authorizes the extension of the Cap-and-Trade regulation beyond 2020. Currently, CARB is operating under the belief that AB 32 authorizes it to maintain the Cap-and-Trade regulation post-2020. Governor Brown has said he will sign both bills, which passed by simple majority votes.
AB 2530 (Gordon; D- Menlo Park) was also passed out of the Legislature and sent to Governor Brown. This bill would require beverage manufacturers to annually report under penalty of perjury to CalRecycle the amount of virgin and post consumer recycled content in their plastic beverage containers. CLFP argued that while it supports efforts to increase recycling and source reduce our packaging, AB 2530 would impose unnecessary costs burdens on beverage manufacturers without any corresponding public policy benefit.
CLFP joined California agricultural producers in opposing AB 1066 (Gonzalez; D-San Diego), which would repeal the longstanding 10-hour daily overtime requirement for agricultural employees. The bill was also passed by the Legislature and sent to Governor Brown.
CLFP opposed SB 1167 (Mendoza), which was also passed out of the Legislature in the final weeks of session. SB 1167 directs Cal/OSHA to adopt a standard to protect the health and safety of indoor workers from heat-related illness and injury, while further implicitly mandating a high heat provision and limiting the discretion and authority of Cal/OSHA to determine the scope and application of the regulation. Cal/OSHA has the statutory authority to adopt regulations using a process that considers stakeholder input through advisory committees. This process results in regulations that are appropriate in scope and application because facts and data are considered by stakeholders and regulators. SB 1167 disregards the authority of Cal/OSHA to determine the most appropriate scope and application for the regulation.
Bills Defeated in the Legislature:
A CLFP opposed measure, SB 1387 (de Leon; D-Los Angeles), was refused passage on the assembly floor in the final hours of the legislative session. This bill would have given state legislators in Sacramento the power to appoint an additional three members to seats on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), a regional air quality board in Southern California. CLFP and over 100 regional and local advocacy groups opposed the measure that would have diluted the local control of SCAQMD. CLFP opposed the bill concerned that such state appointment power would set a precedent likely to affect the other Air Districts in the state. CLFP argued that it is entirely inappropriate to shift local control over critical regional air quality planning to state lawmakers in Sacramento.
AB 2895 (R. Hernández; D-West Covina), a bill that would have exposed employers to costly, excessive litigation, was held on the Senate floor inactive file. The bill would have inappropriately exposed employers to increased litigation costs by adding a private right of action, the risk of class action lawsuits and Private Attorneys General Act claims related to the employer’s written Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) by requiring employers to provide their employees or their representative a written copy of the IIPP, a violation of which in certain circumstances is subject to injunctive relief.
Written by Trudi Hughes and John Larrea, California League of Food Processors Government Affairs Directors
California League Of Food Producers