the california legislative 2017 report card...the california legislative sierra club california 909...
TRANSCRIPT
2017 Report Card
T H E C A L I F O R N I A L E G I S L A T I V E
Sierra Club California 909 12th Street, Suite 202 Page 1 Sacramento, CA 95814
www.sierraclubcalifornia.org October 2017
(Continued on Page 2)
A Year of Gifts to Polluters, Plus a Handful of Environmental Wins
This was the year of the two-thirds vote.
With firm hold of a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature after the November 2016 election, the Demo-cratic legislative leaders and the governor charged into the year ready to test that majority.
In April, they tested it on a bill to finance transportation. In July, they tested it on a bill to extend the cap-and-trade rules for containing climate pollution.
The result?
When it became clear that not all Democrats were up for the votes, the governor and legis-lative leaders started negotiating with the industries that influence a lot of Republican and so-called “moderate” Democrats’ votes in the legislature.
Those key industries, among the most polluting in the state, became the walk-away win-ners.
Bills Polluters Could Love
To get the two-thirds for the transportation finance bill, SB 1, lawmakers and the gover-nor’s office gave the trucking industry an amendment that hinders air regulators’ ability to cut toxic pollution spewing from old trucks still in service.
To grab the two-thirds for the cap-and-trade exten-sion bill, AB 398, lawmakers and the governor negotiated language to remove oil industry opposition. The provisions the oil industry won weakened local air districts’ power to control refinery climate pollution, forced the state air pollution control agency to abandon plans to ratchet down on refinery air pollution, and allowed oil and other busi-nesses to hang onto a nifty tax cut.
And all of that was done before the first half of the legislative year was completed.
Environmental Justice Allies
Sierra Club California and a broad range of environmental and environmental justice allies hung together to oppose the deal with the trucking industry in April. But by July, the environmen-tal coalition split. Some environmental groups supported the cap-and-trade bill, arguing that it was the best deal that could be had. Sierra Club California aligned with environmental justice al-lies to oppose AB 398, arguing that the giveaways to the oil industry would set back progress on cutting climate change and local air pollution.
We lost that effort. And after the tension of that first six months, it seemed the rest of the year could only be better.
In This Issue
Gifts to Polluters, Some Green Wins 1 Assembly’s New Enviro Champs…....2 Governor’s Score Not Whole Story…2 Report Card Bill Summaries………....3 Assembly Report Card………….………4 Senate Report Card……….……….…....6
Giveaways to oil and
trucking industries set
back progress on cutting
local air pollution.
www.sierraclubcalifornia.org October 2017
Sierra Club California 2017 Legislative Report Card, Page 2
Votes by New Class in Assembly Reveal Environmental Champions
When the new class of As-sembly members arrived this year, we were a little skeptical about whether those who claimed to be environmental champions would make us proud.
After all, previous newbies who came in with green credentials had disappointed us as they came face-to-face with the lobbying force of the oil industry, developers, the chemical industry, and big agricul-ture.
This year, though, has been different. Of the 13 scores of 100 percent in the Assembly, five came from the new members who prom-ised to be strong on the environ-ment.
(A 14th score of 100 percent went to Jimmy Gomez, who left the Assembly last summer to serve in the House of Representatives.)
The five were Laura Fried-man from Glendale; Todd Gloria from San Diego; Ash Kalra from San
Jose; Monique Limón from Santa Barbara; and Eloise Reyes from San Bernardino.
Often, it isn’t until after the first re-election race before Assem-blymembers begin leading on the environment. This new crew wasted no time demonstrating leadership.
They all authored at least one important environmental or en-vironmental justice bill.
Kudos and thanks to them and all the other 100 percenters.
Late Successes
In September, environmentalists helped pass a first-of-its-kind bill (AB 262) to force the state to take into ac-count the greenhouse gas emissions embedded in the supply chain for certain construction materials, such as structural steel and rebar. Likewise, a long effort begun a few years ago to provide labels on cleaning products used at the workplace finally passed (SB 258).
But certain oil industry regulation reform bills lost or were significantly weakened, and an important wildlife pro-tection bill (AB 1151) was pulled back by the author.
Early in the year, a triad of bills to beef up California’s environmental protections as a Trump resistance measure were introduced. One was signed into law, one was vetoed, and one was held in the second house.
The lesson? Even in California it isn’t easy to pass green policy.
(Cont, from front page)
Governor’s Signing Score Is Not the Whole Story
Governor Jerry Brown’s score on bills included in this year’s report card is pretty good.
Ten of the 15 bills made it to his desk. The governor agreed with us and signed or vetoed 9 of them as we request-ed. Just one of the scorecard bills that we supported, he vetoed. So he scores a 90 percent this year. But as we have noted before, scores in our annual report card don’t ade-quately illuminate this administration’s approach to policy.
Not So Transparent
One of the most telling illustrations of how the Brown Administration operates occurred in the final week of the leg-islative session. The governor’s office decided to push through a controversial bill related to the complicated elec-tricity grid system. The administration essentially negotiated behind closed doors with a narrowly drawn group.
Together, they apparently decided a late-hour jam would avoid extended public hearing and debate, including about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed legislation.
That novel approach to democracy, a bit reminiscent of what we saw with the health care debate in DC, didn’t work out. The bill was held.
Transparency is not this administration’s strongest characteristic. This legislative year emphasized that.
Sierra Club California 2017 Legislative Report Card, Page 3
www.sierraclubcalifornia.org October 2017
AB 262 (Bonta) Employs the state government’s massive purchasing pow-er and supply-chain analysis to recognize manufacturers who produce less climate pollution than average. SUP-PORT: Signed AB 313 (Gray) Would have weakened the ability of regulators to stop ille-gal diversions of water. OPPOSE: Vetoed AB 378 (C. Garcia) Would have made reforms to cap-and-trade regulations to ensure that local communities would not suffer greater local air pollution SUPPORT: Failed to achieve needed two-thirds vote on Assembly Floor AB 523 (Reyes) Will improve equity of distribution of state funds for clean energy and efficiency projects. SUPPORT: Signed AB 805 (Gonzalez Fletcher) Changes voting at the San Diego Association of Govern-ments (SANDAG) to better reflect the population of San Diego County, and increase transparency and oversight. SUPPORT: Signed AB 890 (Medina) Would have limited the use of ballot initiatives in certain cases to prevent developers from abusing a loophole that allows projects to bypass the California Environmental Quality Act. SUPPORT: Vetoed AB 1151 (Gloria) Would have helped prevent more Vaquita, a small endan-gered porpoise, from drowning by disincentivizing the use of dangerous gillnet fishing gear. SUPPORT: Passed in Assembly, held in Senate AB 1328 (Limón) This bill originally required robust disclosure of all chemi-cals used in all oil industry activities to better protect Cali-fornia from these chemicals. We scored the first Assembly vote only as later votes on the bill reflect amendments that
weakened it to remove oil industry opposition. SUPPORT: Signed AB 1414 (Friedman) Helps make solar power systems more affordable by con-tinuing protections put in place by the passage of SB 1222 (Leno) in 2012 against unchecked permitting fees. SUP-PORT: Signed SB 57 (Stern) Would prohibit SoCal Gas from injecting natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility until a root-cause analysis of the leak from the facility is complete. SUPPORT: Failed to achieve needed two-thirds vote on Senate floor SB 100 (de León) Would accelerate the electricity sector renewable energy requirement to 60% by 2031 and set a state goal to reach 100% clean energy by 2046. SUPPORT: Passed in Senate; held in Assembly SB 231 (Hertzberg) Helps clarify that water agencies can collect fees to imple-ment stormwater cleanup and capture projects. SUP-PORT: Signed SB 258 (Lara) Requires disclosure on the product label of chemical ingre-dients in cleaning products. SUPPORT: Signed SB 465 (Jackson) Would have helped reframe the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources as an agency that should regulate the oil industry, instead of maximizing oil production. SUPPORT: Passed in Senate; held in Assembly SB 801 (Stern) Directs electric utilities to deploy additional energy storage capacity as an emergency procurement to address near-term electric grid needs due to the limitations at the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility. SUPPORT: Signed
2017 Bill Summaries
Sierra Club California policy advocates select the bills that appear on the scorecard. The selection is based on factors that include a bill’s overall importance to the state’s environmental quality, the precedent it sets for good or bad impacts, and the bill’s importance to fulfilling the Club’s mission. We also consider what a bill’s score reveals about environmental commitment in the legislature. This year, we scored 12 bills in each house, Assembly and Senate.
Now that you know the score, take action!
Tell your legislators you know the score. Call their district offices and thank them if they scored well, or express disappointment if they didn’t. Let them know you care about California’s environment. You can find phone numbers for legislators at www.senate.ca.gov or www.assembly.ca.gov.
You can find out who your representatives are at: findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.
Make your voice heard and take action on key legislation when the 2018 legislative session begins by watching for news at: www.sierraclubcalifornia.org.
Become a Sierra Club California member and keep up on the latest news at www.sierraclubcalifornia.org, where you can also sign up for activist updates.
Re
po
rt
Ca
rd
Le
ge
nd
an
d N
ote
s
mea
ns
pro
-en
vir
on
men
t v
ote
mea
ns
an
ti-e
nv
iro
nm
ent
vo
te
mea
ns
leg
isla
tor
wa
s p
rese
nt,
bu
t ch
ose
no
t to
ca
st a
vo
te i
n s
up
po
rt o
f a
pro
-en
vir
on
men
t b
ill
mea
ns
leg
isla
tor
wa
s p
rese
nt,
bu
t ch
ose
no
t to
ca
st a
vo
te o
n a
n a
nti
-en
vir
on
men
t b
ill
mea
ns
excu
sed
ab
sen
ce (
do
es n
ot
cou
nt
tow
ard
to
tal
sco
re)
Sco
res
are
ba
sed
on
th
e n
um
be
r o
f “+
” a
nd
“N
V+
” v
ote
s ca
st v
ers
us
the
tota
l n
um
ber
of
po
ssib
le v
ote
s (e
xcu
sed
ab
sen
ces
do
no
t co
un
t a
ga
inst
a s
core
, b
ut
NV
– v
ote
s d
o).
+
—
NV
-
NV
+
E
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia
w
ww
.sie
rra
clu
bca
lifo
rnia
.org
20
17 L
egis
lati
ve
Rep
ort
Ca
rd,
Pa
ge
4
A
SS
EM
BL
Y
RE
PO
RT
CA
RD
V
OT
E
CO
UN
T
SC
OR
E
OP
PO
SE
D
SU
PP
OR
TE
D M
EA
SU
RE
S
AB
262
Bu
y C
lean
AB
37
8
Cap
& T
rad
e re
form
AB
52
3
Cle
an e
ner
gy
allo
cati
on
AB
80
5
SA
ND
AG
re
form
AB
89
0
Clo
se C
EQ
A
loop
hole
AB
11
51
Pro
tect
th
e V
aquit
a
AB
13
28
Dis
close
oil
ch
emic
als
AB
14
14
So
lar
per
mit
af
ford
abil
ity
SB
23
1
Sto
rmw
ater
fi
nan
cin
g
SB
25
8
Cle
anin
g p
rod
-u
ct l
abel
s
SB
80
1
En
erg
y
sto
rag
e
AB
31
3
Wea
ker
wat
er
law
en
forc
emen
t
Aco
sta,
Dan
te (
R-3
8)
2/1
2
17
%
+
- -
- -
- N
V-
- -
NV
- +
-
Agu
iar-
Cu
rry,
Ce
cilia
(D
-4)
8/1
2
67
%
+
NV
- N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
-
Alle
n, T
ravi
s (R
-72
) 3
/12
25
%
- -
- -
- -
- +
-
+
+
-
Ara
mb
ula
, Jo
aqu
in (
D-3
1)
8/1
2
67
%
+
- +
+
+
+
-
+
- +
+
-
Bak
er,
Cat
har
ine
B. (
R-1
6)
5/1
2
42
%
+
- -
- -
+
- +
-
+
+
-
Be
rman
, Mar
c (D
-24
)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
NV
+
Big
elo
w, F
ran
k (R
-05
)
0/1
2
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- N
V-
- N
V-
-
Blo
om
, Ric
har
d H
. (D
-50
)
11/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Bo
can
egr
a, R
aul (
D-3
9)
9/1
2
75
%
+
- +
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
-
Bo
nta
, Ro
b (
D-1
8)
1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Bro
ugh
, Will
iam
P.
(R-7
3)
0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Bu
rke
, Au
tum
n R
. (D
-62
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Cab
alle
ro, A
nn
a (D
-30
) 7
/12
58
%
+
- +
-
+
+
- -
+
+
+
-
Cal
de
ron
, Ia
n C
. (D
-57
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Ce
rva
nte
s, S
abri
na
(D-6
0)
6/1
2
50
%
+
- +
N
V-
NV
- +
N
V-
+
- +
+
-
Ch
au, E
d (
D-4
9)
11/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Ch
áve
z, R
ock
y (R
-76
) 2
/12
17
%
- -
- -
- -
- -
- +
+
-
Ch
en
, Ph
illip
(R
-55
) 4
/12
33
%
+
- +
-
- N
V-
- -
- +
+
-
Ch
iu, D
avid
S.
(D-1
7)
1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ch
oi,
Ste
ven
Ph
.D. (
R-6
8)
1
/9
11
%
- E
-
- -
E
E
- -
NV
- N
V-
+
Ch
u, K
anse
n (
D-2
5)
9/1
2
75
%
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
-
Co
ole
y, K
en
(D
-08
)
9/1
2
75
%
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
Co
op
er,
Jim
(D
-09
)
6/1
2
50
%
+
- +
+
N
V-
+
NV
- N
V-
+
NV
- +
-
Cu
nn
ingh
am
, Jo
rdan
(R
-35
) 4
/12
33
%
+
- -
- -
- N
V-
+
- +
+
-
Dab
abn
eh
, Mat
the
w M
. (D
-45
)
10/1
2
83
%
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Dah
le, B
rian
(R
-01
) 2
/12
17
%
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
- +
-
Dal
y, T
om
E. (
D-6
9)
7/1
2
58
%
+
- +
+
N
V-
+
NV
- +
N
V-
+
+
-
Eggm
an, S
usa
n T
alam
ante
s (D
-13
) 9
/10
90
%
+
+
+
+
+
E
E
+
+
+
NV
- N
V+
Flo
ra, H
eat
h (
R-1
2)
2/1
2
17
%
+
- N
V-
- -
- -
NV
- -
- +
-
Fon
g, V
ince
(R
-34
) 2
/12
17
%
NV
- -
- -
- -
- +
-
- +
-
Fraz
ier,
Jim
L. J
r. (
D-1
1)
3
/12
25
%
- -
- +
-
+
NV
- N
V-
- N
V-
NV
- N
V+
Frie
dm
an
, Lau
ra (
D-4
3)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Gal
lagh
er,
Jam
es
M. (
R-0
3)
1/1
2
8%
+
-
- -
- -
- N
V-
- -
NV
- -
Gar
cia,
Cri
stin
a (D
-58
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
Gar
cia,
Ed
uar
do
(D
-56
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Gip
son
, Mik
e A
. (D
-64
) 8
/12
67
%
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
NV
- +
-
AS
SE
MB
LY
R
EP
OR
T C
AR
D
VO
TE
C
OU
NT
S
CO
RE
OP
PO
SE
D
SU
PP
OR
TE
D M
EA
SU
RE
S
AB
26
2
Bu
y C
lean
AB
37
8
Cap
& T
rad
e re
form
AB
52
3
Cle
an e
ner
gy
allo
cati
on
AB
80
5
SA
ND
AG
re
form
AB
89
0
Clo
se C
EQ
A
loop
hole
AB
11
51
Pro
tect
th
e V
aquit
a
AB
13
28
Dis
close
oil
ch
emic
als
AB
14
14
So
lar
per
mit
af
ford
abil
ity
SB
23
1
Sto
rmw
ater
fi
nan
cin
g
SB
25
8
Cle
anin
g
pro
du
ct l
abel
s
SB
80
1
En
erg
y
sto
rag
e
AB
31
3
Wea
ker
wat
er
law
en
forc
emen
t
Glo
ria,
To
dd
(D
-78
)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Go
me
z, J
imm
y (D
-51
)*
3/3
1
00
%
E
+
E
E
E
+
+
E
E
E
E
E
Go
nza
lez
Fle
tch
er,
Lo
ren
a (D
-80
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Gra
y, A
dam
(D
-21
) 7
/12
58
%
+
- +
+
-
+
- +
+
N
V-
+
-
Gra
yso
n, T
imo
thy
(D-1
4)
6/1
2
50
%
+
- +
+
N
V-
+
NV
- N
V-
+
NV
- +
-
Har
pe
r, M
atth
ew
(R
-74
) 1
/12
8%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- N
V-
NV
+
Ho
lde
n, C
hri
s (D
-41
) 1
0/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
-
Irw
in, J
acq
ui V
. (D
-44
) 8
/12
67
%
+
+
+
- -
+
+
+
- +
+
-
Jon
es-
Saw
yer,
Sr.
,Re
gin
ald
Byr
on
(D
-59
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Kal
ra, A
sh (
D-2
7)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Kile
y, K
evi
n (
R-0
6)
1/1
2
8%
+
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
NV
- -
Lack
ey,
To
m W
. (R
-36
) 4
/12
33
%
+
- -
- -
- -
+
- +
+
-
Levi
ne
, Mar
c B
. (D
-10
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
Lim
ón
, Mo
niq
ue
(D
-37
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Low
, Eva
n (
D-2
8)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
-
Mai
en
sch
ein
, Bri
an
(R
-77
) 6
/12
50
%
+
- +
-
- +
-
+
- +
+
-
Mat
his
, De
von
J.
(R-2
6)
2/1
2
17
%
- -
- -
- -
- -
- +
+
-
May
es,
Ch
ad
J. (
R-4
2)
1/1
2
8%
N
V-
- -
- -
- -
NV
- -
+
NV
- -
McC
arty
, Ke
vin
(D
-07
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Me
din
a, J
ose
(D
-61
) 1
0/1
2
83
%
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Me
len
de
z, M
elis
sa (
R-6
7)
1/1
1
9%
-
- -
- -
E
NV
- -
- -
+
-
Mu
llin
, Ke
vin
(D
-22
) 1
0/1
2
83
%
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Mu
rats
uch
i, A
l (D
-66
) 1
0/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
Naz
aria
n, A
dri
n (
D-4
6)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Ob
ern
olt
e, J
ay P
. (R
-33
) 0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- N
V-
-
O’D
on
ne
ll, P
atri
ck (
D-7
0)
8/1
2
67
%
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
N
V-
+
NV
- +
+
-
Pat
ters
on
, Jim
(R
-23
) 2
/12
17
%
NV
- -
- -
- -
- +
-
- +
-
Qu
irk,
Bill
(D
-20
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Qu
irk-
Silv
a, S
har
on
(D
-65
) 6
/11
55
%
+
- +
-
+
+
NV
- +
E
-
+
-
Re
nd
on
, An
tho
ny
(D-6
3)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
-
Re
yes,
Elo
ise
Gó
me
z (D
-47
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Rid
ley-
Tho
mas
, Se
bas
tian
(D
-54
) 5
/11
45
%
+
- +
N
V-
- +
-
+
E
- +
-
Ro
dri
gue
z, F
red
die
(D
-52
) 1
0/1
2
83
%
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Ru
bio
, Bla
nca
E. (
D-4
8)
8/1
2
67
%
+
- +
+
+
+
N
V-
+
NV
- +
+
-
Sala
s, J
r., R
ud
y (D
-32
) 7
/12
58
%
+
- +
+
+
+
-
+
- -
+
-
San
tiag
o, M
igu
el (
D-5
3)
11/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Ste
ino
rth
, Mar
c (R
-40
) 5
/12
42
%
+
- +
-
- N
V-
- +
-
+
+
-
Sto
ne
, Mar
k (D
-29
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Thu
rmo
nd
, To
ny
(D-1
5)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Tin
g, P
hill
ip Y
. (D
-19
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V+
Vo
ep
el,
Ran
dy
(R-7
1)
1/1
2
8%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
NV
- +
-
Wal
dro
n, M
arie
(R
-75
) 3
/12
25
%
- -
- -
- +
-
- -
+
+
-
We
be
r, S
hir
ley
N.
(D-7
9)
11/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
N
V+
Wo
od
, Jim
(D
-02
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V+
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia
w
ww
.sie
rra
clu
bca
lifo
rnia
.org
20
17 L
egis
lati
ve
Rep
ort
Ca
rd,
Pa
ge
5
*Jim
my
Go
mez
left
th
e A
sse
mb
ly in
th
e su
mm
er t
o jo
in t
he
Ho
use
of
Re
pre
sen
tati
ves.
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia
w
ww
.sie
rra
clu
bca
lifo
rnia
.org
20
17 L
egis
lati
ve
Rep
ort
Ca
rd,
Pa
ge
6
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia,
fou
nd
ed i
n 1
98
6,
is t
he
leg
isla
tiv
e a
nd
reg
ula
tory
ad
vo
cacy
arm
of
the
Sie
rra
Clu
b’s
13
Ca
lifo
rnia
ch
ap
ters
. T
his
rep
ort
wa
s d
evel
op
ed b
y S
ierr
a C
lub
Ca
lifo
rnia
Dir
ecto
r K
ath
ryn
Ph
illi
ps,
po
licy
ad
vo
cate
s E
dw
ard
Mo
ren
o a
nd
Ky
le J
on
es,
an
d o
per
ati
on
s st
aff
Meg
Gu
nd
erso
n a
nd
Ger
ald
ine
Ala
va
.
SE
NA
TE
R
EP
OR
T C
AR
D
VO
TE
C
OU
NT
S
CO
RE
SU
PP
OR
TE
D M
EA
SU
RE
S
OP
PO
SE
D
AB
262
Bu
y C
lean
AB
52
3
Cle
an
ener
gy
allo
cati
on
AB
80
5
SA
ND
AG
re
form
AB
89
0
Clo
se
CE
QA
lo
op
hole
AB
14
14
S
ola
r p
erm
it
affo
rdab
ilit
y
SB
57
Ex
tend
Ali
so
Can
yo
n m
ora
tori
-u
m
SB
10
0
100
% r
enew
able
en
erg
y b
y 2
04
6
SB
23
1
Sto
rmw
ater
fi
nan
cin
g
SB
25
8
Cle
anin
g
pro
du
ct
label
s
SB
46
5
DO
GG
R
refo
rm
SB
80
1
En
erg
y
sto
rag
e
AB
31
3
Wea
ker
wat
er l
aw
enfo
rcem
ent
Alle
n, B
en
jam
in (
D-2
6)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
An
de
rso
n, J
oe
l (R
-38
) 0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Atk
ins,
To
ni G
. (D
-39
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Bat
es,
Pat
rici
a C
. (R
-36
) 0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Be
all,
Jim
(D
-15
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Be
rryh
ill, T
om
(R
-08
) 2
/11
18
%
NV
- -
- -
+
- -
E
- -
- N
V+
Bra
dfo
rd, S
teve
n (
D-3
5)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
-
Can
ne
lla, A
nth
on
y J.
(R
-12
) 3
/12
25
%
+
+
- -
- N
V-
- -
- -
+
-
de
Le
ón
, Ke
vin
(D
-24
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Do
dd
, Bill
(D
-03
) 1
0/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Fulle
r, J
ean
(R
-16
) 0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Gai
ne
s, T
ed
(R
-01
) 2
/12
17
%
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
NV
+
Gal
gian
i, C
ath
lee
n (
D-0
5)
7/1
2
58
%
+
+
NV
- +
+
N
V-
+
NV
- +
N
V-
+
-
Gla
zer,
Ste
ven
M.
(D-0
7)
8/1
2
67
%
+
+
- -
+
+
+
+
+
- +
-
He
rna
nd
ez,
Ed
, O.D
. (D
-22
) 9
/12
75
%
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
N
V-
+
-
He
rtzb
erg
, Ro
be
rt M
. (D
-18
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Hill
, Je
rry
(D-1
3)
11/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Hu
eso
, Be
n (
D-4
0)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
-
Jack
son
, Han
nah
-Be
th (
D-1
9)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Lara
, Ric
ard
o (
D-3
3)
11/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Leyv
a, C
on
nie
M. (
D-2
0)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
McG
uir
e, M
ike
(D
-02
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Me
nd
oza
, To
ny
(D-3
2)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
-
Mit
che
ll, H
olly
J. (
D-3
0)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Mo
nn
ing,
Bill
(D
-17
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Mo
orl
ach
, Jo
hn
(R
-37
) 0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Mo
rre
ll, M
ike
L. (
R-2
3)
0/1
2
0%
-
- -
- -
NV
- -
- -
- -
-
Ne
wm
an, J
osh
(D
-29
) 9
/12
75
%
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
N
V-
+
NV
- +
N
V+
Ngu
yen
, Jan
et
(R-3
4)
2/1
2
17
%
- +
-
- +
N
V-
- -
- -
- -
Nie
lse
n, J
im W
. (R
-04
) 0
/12
0%
-
- N
V-
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Pan
, Ric
har
d M
.D.
(D-0
6)
10/1
2
83
%
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Po
rtan
tin
o, A
nth
on
y (D
-25
) 9
/11
82
%
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
N
V-*
E
+
+
+
+
Ro
th, R
ich
ard
D. (
D-3
1)
7/1
2
58
%
+
+
+
NV
- +
N
V-
NV
- N
V-
+
+
+
-
Skin
ne
r, N
ancy
(D
-09
) 1
2/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Ste
rn, H
en
ry (
D-2
7)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Sto
ne
, Je
ff E
. (R
-28
) 0
/12
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Vid
ak, A
nd
y (R
-14
) 1
/11
9%
-
+
- -
- -
- E
-
- -
-
Wie
cko
wsk
i, B
ob
(D
-10
) 1
1/1
2
92
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Wie
ne
r, S
cott
D.
(D-1
1)
12/1
2
100
%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Wilk
, Sco
tt (
R-2
1)
5/1
2
42
%
+
+
- -
- +
-
+
- -
+
-
*Ass
em
bly
mem
be
r P
ort
anti
no
was
ab
sen
t fr
om
th
e SB
10
0 v
ote
to
att
end
a f
un
eral
.