Much of what’s left on the table traces back to last year’s sweeping climate and energy agreement, though a handful of fresh controversies have also worked their way into the mix. Adding a new wrinkle to the process is Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who steps into high-stakes, closed-door negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas for the first time.

Here’s a rundown of five major issues likely to shape the final weeks of the session.

Climate fund fight looms large

Perhaps the thorniest issue on the table is how to divide up money from the state’s primary climate fund, an argument that spilled over past the June budget deadline without resolution.

Assembly Budget Committee Chair Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat, told reporters the climate spending plan would top the priority list once lawmakers reconvened.

At issue is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, financed through the state’s cap-and-trade style carbon market that charges polluting companies and funnels the proceeds into climate programs. Last fall’s deal to reauthorize that market also locked in an order for which projects get funded first.

The trouble is that new emissions rules adopted by the Newsom administration this year could cut that revenue stream roughly in half — putting billions in expected funding at risk and infuriating Senate Democrats, who floated their own competing spending plans over the summer.

So far, leaders have agreed to steer $115 million toward Newsom’s electric vehicle incentive program and $1.25 billion to shore up the state’s firefighting agency. Still unresolved is the fate of the high-speed rail project, which was slated to receive $1 billion annually through 2045, along with funding for safe drinking water, affordable housing and transit programs.

Separately, negotiators have yet to hash out how to divvy up Proposition 4, the $10 billion climate bond voters approved. Last year’s process for allocating those dollars drew criticism even from lawmakers themselves after some pushed hard behind the scenes to funnel money to pet projects back home — several with only a loose connection to environmental goals.

California Forever pushes for a deal

The tech-backed group California Forever, which has been trying to develop a large stretch of Solano County farmland, is making a renewed push for legislative relief from environmental review requirements.

For months, the group and allied labor unions argued that such a carve-out was essential to landing a deal with Saronic Technologies Inc., a Texas-based shipbuilder reportedly considering California for a new shipyard. California Forever wanted lawmakers to fast-track environmental reviews and override certain county land-use restrictions, but no bill ultimately came together amid pushback from critics who accused the group of trying to sidestep both local control and environmental safeguards.

Saronic announced last month it would build its shipyard in Texas instead — a decision California Forever blamed squarely on Sacramento’s inaction. “We were passed over because… our approval process cannot accommodate the required speed without special legislation, which was not passed in time,” the group said in a statement, adding that “California and Solano County must not miss the next opportunity.”

According to lobbying disclosures filed Friday, California Forever has spent $455,000 since last year lobbying the Legislature and the governor’s office.

The project appears to have a friend in the governor. Newsom’s office convened a meeting last Thursday that included Solano County supervisors, California Forever representatives, Assemblymember Lori Wilson and Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, both of whom represent the area.

Dee Dee Myers, who leads the governor’s office of business and economic development, also attended. Her office issued a memo last month describing the region as a “world-class industrial site” and emphasizing the economic upside of building a shipyard and manufacturing hub there. “California is better positioned to attract billions of dollars in investment, tens of thousands of new good-paying jobs and a more resilient supply chain than it has been in decades,” the memo stated, calling the proposed Solano Shipyard and Solano Foundry the clearest example of that opportunity.

Wildfire proposal raises questions about utility liability

Newsom is also expected to push wildfire-related legislation this session, though his office has yet to reveal specifics.

Consumer advocates, wildfire survivors and even some insurers suspect the governor is looking to reduce utility companies’ liability for sparking wildfires, shift recovery costs onto insurance customers, and make it tougher for fire victims to secure compensation or legal help. Newsom’s office has declined to confirm or deny those characterizations.

Spokesperson Anthony Martinez said any forthcoming legislation would stem from an April study by the California Earthquake Authority examining how the state can better prepare for natural disasters. That study was required under a last-minute agreement Newsom struck with lawmakers last year that forced utilities to contribute to the state’s wildfire fund while also letting them pass some costs on to ratepayers.

A coalition called Wildfire Survivors First — funded by utility companies despite its name — is now lobbying lawmakers to adopt several recommendations from that study, arguing they would lower wildfire risk and ease the cost of property insurance.

Most legislative leaders have kept quiet on what a final package might look like. Sen. Ben Allen, a Los Angeles Democrat currently running for state insurance commissioner, said he’ll scrutinize any bill closely and cautioned against measures that “simply shift around the costs consumers pay.” Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, who represents Eaton Fire survivors, said she’d fight any last-minute effort to cap compensation for fire victims.

Antitrust bill pits labor against business

Lawmakers must also decide the fate of a hotly contested bill that would allow Californians to sue large corporations in state court over anticompetitive, monopolistic conduct.

The measure, dubbed the COMPETE Act, has drawn fierce opposition from the business community, with the California Chamber of Commerce branding Assembly Bill 1776 “the largest expansion of antitrust law in world history.” The chamber warns the bill would expose companies of every size to sweeping legal liability.

Business groups also argue the legislation opens the door to a new wave of “private right of action” lawsuits, adding to existing complaints about California laws that already invite lawsuits over disability access, product warning labels, labor violations and consumer privacy.

The bill’s author, Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Davis, has drawn support from progressive, labor-aligned lawmakers as well as more centrist Central Valley Democrats such as Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains and Sen. Melissa Hurtado. Major labor groups, including the California Federation of Labor Unions, SEIU California and the United Food and Commercial Workers, are co-sponsoring the bill.

It’s scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Aug. 10.

Counties look for relief from costly abuse claims

Los Angeles County is spearheading a quieter effort to curb lawsuits filed by people who say they were abused as children by public employees while in county or school district custody.

The push comes amid a wave of litigation triggered by a 2019 state law that dramatically extended the statute of limitations for such claims — allowing survivors to sue until age 40, rather than the previous cutoff of 26 or within five years of recognizing the abuse’s lasting harm. The resulting settlements have cost local governments and school districts billions of dollars.

Last April, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a $4 billion settlement covering roughly 6,800 people who alleged abuse in county juvenile detention facilities, with some claims dating back more than 65 years.

Lawmakers tried to strike a middle-ground compromise last session through Senate Bill 577, authored by Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, aimed at balancing survivors’ rights with financial relief for cash-strapped counties and school districts. That effort failed to gain traction, and Laird ultimately set it aside.

Now public employee unions are renewing the push, largely hoping to avoid concessions from financially strained public employers. Any resolution will likely be hashed out at the leadership level, between Limón and Rivas.

Original source: CalMatters

The post 5 Deals to Watch as California Lawmakers Wrap Up Session appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assembly Bill 1776, known as the COMPETE Act, would broaden California’s antitrust laws to let individuals and businesses take companies to state court if they believe unfair, monopolistic tactics have caused them harm. Currently, such lawsuits generally require proof that two or more companies conspired to squeeze out competitors. Federal law does allow claims against a single company acting alone, but supporters of the bill argue that federal courts have weakened antitrust protections so significantly that California needs its own, stronger version.

The debate has emerged as one of the more heated fights of this legislative session, drawing battle lines between labor unions and trial attorneys on one side and business and technology lobbying groups on the other. Together, these interests have poured more than $106 million into California campaign coffers since 2000, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

Backers of the bill say it would give everyday Californians a legal tool to keep neighborhood grocery stores and pharmacies from being squeezed out, prevent single corporations from controlling entire supply chains that farms and restaurants depend on, and preserve patient choice in health care.

Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Davis Democrat who authored the bill, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that more than three-quarters of American industries have grown increasingly consolidated since the late 1990s.

“When companies gain that much power and abuse it, that means higher prices, less choice, fewer opportunities for job creators to start small businesses and suppressed wages for working families,” Aguiar-Curry told the panel.

Business advocates counter that the measure would open the door for opportunistic law firms to target companies with costly lawsuits, regardless of merit. They point to California’s history with other consumer-protection statutes — covering disability access, product warning labels, wage claims and privacy — that critics say have spawned a cottage industry of litigation aimed more at settlements than genuine reform.

The California Chamber of Commerce has been especially vocal in its opposition, going so far as to put up billboards near the state Capitol earlier this year calling out Aguiar-Curry by name. One read: “Cecilia, prices are high enough already. Don’t make life more expensive for California consumers.” A Chamber spokesperson declined to comment further on the billboard campaign.

Rather than quiet the bill’s momentum, though, the public pressure campaign appears to have strengthened support among many Democrats, even as some moderates in the party remain uneasy about the potential impact on businesses operating in the state.

Babette Boliek, a law professor at Pepperdine University and former chief economist for the Federal Communications Commission, said those concerns aren’t unfounded. She argues the bill’s language is too vague, potentially giving judges broad discretion to rule based on sympathy rather than clear evidence of harm — comparing it to enforcing “a speed limit that no one knows exists.”

In response to criticism, Aguiar-Curry’s office added a carve-out meant to shield small, independently owned California businesses — those with 100 or fewer employees and average annual gross revenue under $10 million over the past three years.

Still, Cal Chamber Executive Vice President Ben Golombek argues that thousands of businesses of all sizes would remain exposed to expensive litigation, including lawsuits filed by rival companies. “This unprecedented and massive legal liability for businesses of every size — small, medium, and large — that this bill creates is why we’re so opposed to it,” he said.

On the other side, labor leaders say the measure is overdue. Mark Ramos, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, said increasing consolidation among grocery chains has made it harder for workers to negotiate fair wages, since fewer competitors means less pressure on employers to offer better pay. “With that consolidation has come the larger challenge of not being able to negotiate a contract that allows our members to kind of thrive in their local economy because these grocers no longer have to compete against each other,” Ramos said.

Despite the bill’s momentum, some Democrats remain cautious. Sen. Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has raised concerns about allowing private citizens and businesses — rather than just government prosecutors — to file these lawsuits. He has pushed for enforcement to rest solely with the state attorney general and local district attorneys, at least for now.

“We want to make sure that we are not stifling competition by virtue of the threat of lawsuits,” Umberg told the committee.

Aguiar-Curry has agreed to make several changes Umberg requested but has stopped short of limiting enforcement power to prosecutors alone. She said she would keep refining the bill to make it “harder to bring a meritless suit” before its next hearing.

The bill cleared the Judiciary Committee, with only Republicans voting against it. However, Umberg abstained rather than casting a “no” vote — a move that carries the same practical effect. He was among 16 Democrats who declined to vote when the bill narrowly passed the Assembly, a common maneuver lawmakers use to avoid publicly opposing legislation backed by powerful allies while still signaling discomfort.

The COMPETE Act is next scheduled to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee when the Legislature reconvenes from summer recess in early August.

Supporters are hoping the final version of the bill preserves the right of ordinary Californians to sue over anticompetitive conduct. Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, an advocacy group focused on curbing corporate monopolies, said allowing private lawsuits is essential to keeping large corporations in check.

Without that option, he warned, companies with deep pockets and political influence could pressure regulators and lawmakers into looking the other way. “The private right of action is a critical backstop to the politicization of antitrust enforcement, which threatens the entire project of policing markets for fairness,” Hepner said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Split Over Proposal Making It Easier to Sue Corporations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.