California wildfire legislation includes PG&E ‘bailout’

Sept. 01--SACRAMENTO -- After an impassioned debate, the California Legislature late Friday approved a $1 billion wildfire prevention package -- a contentious measure that includes needed fire-prevention funding along with provisions critics call a "bailout" for PG&E, the utility whose equipment started some of the wine country fires.

Supporters called the bill necessary, if imperfect.

"They say a good compromise makes everyone a bit unhappy and that's me tonight," said Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, noting concerns about the utility provisions. But, he added, "I've come to the conclusion on balance that this bill does right more than it does wrong."

But Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo -- a longtime critic of the utility company -- gave a blistering critique of the proposal. "Why are we rushing to bail out PG&E with its history of cutting safety as a business decision?" he asked.

The vote came in the final hours of legislative session marked by continued resistance to the Trump administration, reaction to the #MeToo movement and hard-fought reforms -- including a wholesale scrapping of the state's cash bail system -- that was punctuated on the final day by the passage of an open internet law to prohibit the throttling of online traffic.

The wildfire bill is a response to the ferocious and deadly wildfires that have roared across the state in the past year, killing more than 40 people and destroying thousands of homes. Included along with the additional funding for underbrush thinning and forest health were provisions that outraged consumer advocates by allowing PG&E and other utilities to pass along some of the costs of wildfire damage caused by their equipment -- measures the utilities argue will spare them from financial ruin.

If approved and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, Senate Bill 901 by Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, would allow utilities to assign some costs directly to customers -- and to borrow money to cover other expenses through bonds repaid with higher utility bills -- if state regulators deem it is "just and reasonable" based on an array of factors, including the utility's conduct. But the proposal sets a lower standard for wildfires that blazed in 2017, requiring only that the Public Utilities Commission determine how much a utility could afford to pay without harming consumers. That provision would benefit PG&E, which faces mounting liability in last year's devastating Wine Country fires, some of which were sparked by the utility's equipment.

The wildfire/PG&E bill is a top priority for Brown, and he is likely to sign it. The governor -- who is in the final few months of his tenure -- will have several weeks to consider the rest of the legislature's handiwork, with a deadline Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.

The Legislature also this week approved a bill to establish statewide protocols on emergency alerts, as well as a proposal to bring greater accountability to local fire inspections. That bill, Senate Bill 205, from Hill, was inspired by an investigation by this news organization that showed fire departments regularly failed to complete required annual inspections of schools and apartment buildings. The bill, which won unanimous support, would require local fire departments to prepare annual reports of how many inspections are conducted each year.

But as was the case last year, national politics have shaped some of the most prominent proposals heading to the governor's desk, from restrictions on offshore drilling to a bill aiming to protect undocumented immigrants from being arrested by immigration agents during court hearings or while doing business in California courthouses.

One such bill on Brown's desk is a direct response to the repeal of federal internet regulations under the Trump administration. The "net neutrality" bill by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would create some of the strongest regulations in the nation if signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. It won final approval Friday despite heavy lobbying from internet service providers, and may propel other states to adopt similar rules.

And the #MeToo movement that erupted in Hollywood quickly took hold in Sacramento, with staffers and lobbyists demanding an end to sexual harassment and abuse in the Capitol and across the state, as well as gender equity. Among the resulting legislation was a bill by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson. Senate Bill 1300 would ban nondisclosure agreements by California employers -- in which employees sign away rights to speak out about or sue over bad behavior -- as a requirement of employment or raises, a practice that came to light in case after case.

A bill aiming to hold police more accountable for using deadly force -- which took on new relevance after the fatal March shooting of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man, in Sacramento -- stalled this week. But two other proposals seeking greater transparency passed narrowly Friday night. Assembly Bill 748 from Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would require the release of body camera footage within 45 days of an incident involving lethal force or causing severe injury unless the department deems it would interfere with an investigation. And Senate Bill 1421, by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Oakland, would relax California's tight grip on disciplinary records of officers involved in deadly force or misconduct.

"California has some the most secretive laws in our country when it comes to our personnel records for our law enforcement officers," said Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento. "Unfortunately this prevents the public and law enforcement from learning about some of the bad actions from a small amount of officers."

One effort that failed to gain traction was to shore up funding for contaminated drinking water systems through fees on fertilizer mills, dairies and a voluntary tax of $1 per month for consumers statewide. Activists spent days marching outside of the Capitol, urging the Assembly's leadership to call a vote on a pair of bills by Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel. By Friday afternoon, it was clear that was not going to happen.

Instead, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon issued a statement promising to "build upon the hard work" of Monning and others to find a solution to the public health crisis. "Working together," he wrote, "the Legislature will ensure that all Californians have access to this fundamental human need."

But perhaps the most passionate debate of the week was over something that hits close to home for millions of families: just how early middle and high school should start.

Related Articles

*

The Carr Fire: by the numbers

*

California's $1 billion plan to reduce wildfire risk. Is it enough?

*

Carr Fire: Firefighters declare massive Redding blaze fully contained

*

Smoke advisory: Bay Area residents face long, unhealthy weekend

*

Map: California fires still burning on Labor Day weekend

Another bill approved by the legislature late Friday would require middle and high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. by July 2021. Proponents of Senate Bill 328 argued that there is a mountain of research that adolescents are better off and learn more when they get to sleep in, while others said a later start time would cause hardship for working parents and add costs to school districts -- and that it was a matter best resolved locally.

But ultimately the proposal prevailed in the Assembly, despite failing there last fall. It got a boost from Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, who delivered a fiery speech with stories from her days serving on a school board.

"You have to decide what is really going to move the children of California forward," she said. "We spend too much time talking about old people and their needs."

For more information about bills and to see how lawmakers voted, visit the California Legislative Information website.

___

(c)2018 the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.)

Visit the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.) at www.eastbaytimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.