October 12, 2023
Golden State Republican Women
Janet Price, President
Submitted by the GSRW Legislative Analyst Committee
Karen Contreras, Lou Ann Flaherty and Elaine Freeman,
Sample of BILLS VETOED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM (some surprising)
- SB 686 by Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) – Domestic workers: occupational safety. A veto message can be found here.
Existing law establishes within the Department of Industrial Relations the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, with duties and powers, as prescribed.
Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, requires employers to comply with certain standards ensuring healthy and safe working conditions, as specified. The act charges the Division of Occupational Safety and Health with enforcement of the act, subject to oversight by the Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The act excludes household domestic service from the definition of “employment.”
The act requires the chief, or a representative of the chief, to convene an advisory committee for the purposes of creating voluntary guidance and making recommendations to the department and the Legislature on policies the state may adopt to protect the health and safety of privately funded household domestic service employees, except publicly funded household domestic service and family daycare homes, as specified. The act requires the advisory committee to develop voluntary industry-specific occupational health and safety guidance relating to workplace hazards and the prevention or minimization of work-related injuries and illnesses.
The act requires the advisory committee to make recommendations, as specified, on additional policies to protect the health and safety of household domestic service employees. Under specified circumstances, a violation of the act is a crime.
This bill would make CBOs responsible for developing and consulting with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health regarding the core education and outreach materials regarding health and safety standards, retaliation, and the division’s workplace safety complaint and retaliation process, including specific issues that affect the domestic work industry differently.
This bill, for purposes of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, commencing January 1, 2025, would narrow the exclusion of household domestic service from the definition of “employment” to exclude only publicly funded household domestic service and family daycare homes, as specified.
The bill would require the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, by January 1, 2025, to adopt industry guidance to assist household domestic service employers on their legal obligations under existing occupational safety and health laws and regulations that apply to the work activity of household domestic service employees.
The bill would require the guidance to be consistent with the voluntary industry guidelines established by the advisory committee. The bill would require a household domestic services employer, by January 1, 2025, to comply with, and adhere to, all applicable occupational safety and health regulations.
- SB 799 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) – Unemployment insurance: trade disputes: eligibility for benefits. A veto message can be found here.
Existing law provides for the payment of unemployment compensation benefits and extended benefits to eligible individuals who meet specified requirements.
Under existing law, unemployment benefits are paid from the Unemployment Fund, which is continuously appropriated for these purposes.
Existing law makes an employee ineligible for benefits if the employee left work because of a trade dispute and specifies that the employee remains ineligible for the duration of the trade dispute. Existing case law holds that employees who left work due to a lockout by the employer, even if it was in anticipation of a trade dispute, are eligible for benefits.
This bill would restore eligibility after the first 2 weeks for an employee who left work because of a trade dispute. The bill would codify specified case law that holds that employees who left work due to a lockout by the employer, even if it was in anticipation of a trade dispute, are eligible for benefits. The bill would specify that the bill’s provisions do not diminish eligibility for benefits of individuals deprived of work due to an employer lockout or similar action, as specified.
- AB 966 by Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) – Division of Boating and Waterways: report to the Legislature: shoreline erosion control and public beach programs. A veto message can be found here.
Existing law establishes the Division of Boating and Waterways within the Department of Parks and Recreation to, among other things, study and monitor beach erosion and means for the stabilization of beaches and shoreline areas.
Existing law generally authorizes the division to cooperate with all relevant agencies of government for purposes of beach erosion control and stabilization of beaches and shoreline areas. Existing law, subject to funding availability, including the division’s management of any federal funds, requires the division to prepare plans for and construct erosion control or stabilization projects as its studies and investigations indicate to be necessary for beach erosion control or stabilization of beaches and shoreline areas, and specifically authorizes several projects.
This bill would require the division to, no later than January 1, 2025, and in cooperation with the State Coastal Conservancy, prepare and submit a joint report to the Legislature on shoreline erosion control and public beach restoration programs, as specified. The bill would require the report, among other things, to detail and discuss existing programs, evaluate the need for continued projects and program application requirements, and identify the beaches of the state that contain a critically eroded shoreline, as this bill would require the division to define the term.
This bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2026.
- AB 1631 by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-San Fernando Valley) – Water resources: permit to appropriate: application procedure: mining use. A veto message can be found here.
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board administers a water rights program pursuant to which the board grants permits and licenses to appropriate water. Existing law requires an application for a permit to appropriate water to include, among other things, sufficient information to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that unappropriated water is available for the proposed appropriation. Existing law requires the board to issue and deliver a notice of an application as soon as practicable after the receipt of an application for a permit to appropriate water that conforms to the law.
Existing law allows interested persons to file a written protest against the approval of an application to appropriate water and requires the protestant to set forth the objections to the approval of the application. Existing law declares that no hearing is necessary to issue a permit in connection with an unprotested application, or if the undisputed facts support the issuance of the permit and there is no disputed issue of material fact, unless the board elects to hold a hearing.
This bill, if the board has not rendered a final determination on an application for a permit to appropriate water for a beneficial use or uses that include mining use within 30 years from the date the application was filed, would require the board to issue a new notice and provide an opportunity for protests before rendering a final determination, with specified exceptions.
- SB 493 by Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine) – Air pollution: alternative vehicles and electric and hydrogen infrastructure. A veto message can be found here.
Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) to undertake various actions in furtherance of meeting the state’s clean energy and pollution reduction objectives, including actions related to electric vehicles.
Existing law requires the Energy Commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board (state board) and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), to prepare a statewide assessment of fuel cell electric vehicle fueling infrastructure and fuel production needed to support the adoption of zero-emission trucks, buses, and off-road vehicles at levels necessary for the state to meet the goals and requirements of Executive Order No. N-79-20 and any state board regulatory action that requires or allows zero-emission vehicles in the heavy-duty vehicle and off-road sectors.
Existing law also requires the Energy Commission, working with the state board and the PUC, to prepare a statewide assessment of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required for the state to meet its goals of putting at least 5,000,000 zero-emission vehicles on California roads by 2030, and of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
This bill would require the assessment of the fuel cell electric vehicle fueling infrastructure and fuel production to additionally include an assessment of storage and transport facilities, and the assessment of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure to additionally include electric system infrastructure and electric generation.
The bill would expand the scope of the latter assessment to include the electric vehicle charging infrastructure, electric system infrastructure, and electric generation needed for the state to meet the goals of Executive Order No. N-79-20 and any state board regulatory action that requires or allows zero-emission vehicles in the heavy-duty vehicle and off-road sectors.
The bill would require both assessments to identify any barriers to the deployment of hydrogen infrastructure and any barriers to the deployment of electric infrastructure, respectively, for medium- and heavy-duty fleets and recommendations for addressing those barriers.
The bill would require the Energy Commission to publish a determination regarding the adequacy of completed or planned charging or fueling sites for the 5 years following the completion of the initial statewide assessment and the findings of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure assessment, as provided.
The bill would also require the Energy Commission to identify any charging or fueling site deficiencies and categorize those deficiencies by refueling speed and by type of facility, as either a public facility or a private facility. The bill would require the Energy Commission to update the electric vehicle charging infrastructure assessment and the determination at least once every 2 years.
Existing law requires the state board to recommend reasonable and achievable goals for reducing emissions from medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles by 2030 and 2050, respectively, as part of the comprehensive strategy based on factors that include specified goals.
More to follow until October 14th: Governor’s deadline to sign, veto, or allow to become law without his signature.
For the list of passed and vetoed bills: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/10/08/governor-newsom-issues-legislative-update-10-8-23/
Legislative Portal links – Express your support or opposition to a bill or directly to the Legislative committee currently reviewing it (as an individual, not as a member of RW or GSRW, or the bill’s author – click here, enter your bill # and look for tab at top of the bill page labeled “Comments to Author”.
