Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Concord: Healthcare Services Group to settle EEOC national origin discrimination charge

By Leave a Comment

Federal investigation found housekeeping company restricted nursing home housekeeper from speaking Spanish

En Español, tambien

By Christopher Green, Deputy Director, EEOC San Francisco District Office

SAN FRANCISCO – Healthcare Services Group, Inc., which provides housekeeping and other services to healthcare facilities with 35,000 employees in 48 states, agreed to provide monetary and injunctive relief to an employee following an investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In a charge filed with EEOC, a woman employed as a “light housekeeper” at a nursing home facility in Concord, California, alleged that Healthcare Services Group prohibited her from speaking her native language of Spanish while in the workplace. The EEOC’s investigation found evidence confirming that her employer maintained a limited “English-only” rule. If applied at all times in the workplace or unless justified by business necessity, this type of policy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin.

After the investigation, the parties engaged in a pre-litigation conciliation process resulting in a settlement. Healthcare Services Group will pay monetary damages to the housekeeper and will provide training for all California employees as well as separate training for all California managers and human resources personnel. The company also agreed to revise its California policies and procedures to include a clear statement that Healthcare Services Group will not restrict languages spoken by employees not performing patient care, and that employees have the right to speak their preferred language in the workplace. These policies will be issued in English, Spanish and any other language spoken by 5% or more of its California workforce. In addition, the company agreed to remove English fluency requirements from the light housekeeper job description, and to post a notice of the agreement for a period of two years.

“Restrictive language policies are only allowed if they are required to ensure safe or efficient business operation and is put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons. Client relations and customer preference do not justify discriminatory policies,” said Rosa Salazar, acting director of the EEOC’s Oakland Local Office. “We commend Healthcare Services Group for making important changes in their policies and training their entire California workforce to recognize and prevent this form of national origin discrimination.”

For more information on national origin discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination. For related resources for small businesses, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/small-business-fact-sheet-national-origin-discrimination.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Grupo de Servicios de Atención Médica Resolverá el Cargo de Discriminación por Nacionalidad de la EEOC

La Investigación Federal Encontró a la Empresa de Limpieza de Restringir a sus Empleados a Hablar Español

SAN FRANCISCO – Healthcare Services Group, Inc., que brinda servicios de limpieza y otros servicios a centros de atención médica y emplea a 35,000 empleados en 48 estados, acordó pagar $15,000 y brindar otras medidas cautelares a un empleado luego de una investigación realizada por la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo de EE. UU. (EEOC), anunció hoy la agencia.

En un cargo presentado ante la EEOC, una mujer, empleada como “simple limpieza” en un asilo de ancianos en Concord, California, alegó que Healthcare Services Group le prohibió hablar su idioma nativo, el español, mientras estaba en su centro de trabajo. La investigación de la EEOC encontró evidencia que confirma que su empleador mantenía una regla limitada de “solo inglés”. Aplicándose esto en todo momento en el centro de labores o a menos que esté justificado por una necesidad comercial, este tipo de política viola el Título VII de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964, que prohíbe la discriminación basada en la nacionalidad.

Luego de la investigación, las partes iniciaron un proceso de conciliación previo al litigio que resultó en un acuerdo. Healthcare Services Group pagará una indemnización monetaria al ama de llaves y brindará capacitación a todos los empleados de California, así como capacitación separada para todos los gerentes y personal de recursos humanos de California. La compañía también acordó revisar sus políticas y procedimientos de California para incluir una declaración clara de que Healthcare Services Group no restringirá los idiomas hablados por los empleados que no atienden a pacientes y que los empleados tienen derecho a hablar su idioma de su preferencia en el centro de labor. Estas políticas se emitirán en inglés, español y cualquier otro idioma hablado por el 5% o más de su personal en California. Además, la empresa acordó eliminar los requisitos de fluidez en inglés de la descripción del puesto de simple limpieza y publicar un aviso del acuerdo por un período de dos años.

“Las políticas lingüísticas restrictivas sólo se permiten si estas son necesarias para garantizar una operación comercial segura o eficiente y se implementan por razones no discriminatorias. Las relaciones con los clientes y las preferencias de los mismos no justifican políticas discriminatorias”, dijo Rosa Salazar, directora interina de la Oficina Local de Oakland de la EEOC. “Felicitamos a Healthcare Services Group por realizar cambios importantes en sus políticas y capacitar a toda su fuerza laboral de California para reconocer y prevenir esta forma de discriminación por nacionalidad”.

Para obtener más información sobre la discriminación por nacionalidad, visite https://www.eeoc.gov/es/discriminacion-por-origen-nacional. Para obtener recursos relacionados para pequeñas empresas, visite https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/small-business-fact-sheet-national-origin-discrimination (en inglés).

La EEOC promueve las oportunidades en el lugar de trabajo al hacer cumplir las leyes federales que prohíben la discriminación laboral. Más información está disponible en https://www.eeoc.gov/es. Manténgase conectado con las últimas noticias de la EEOC suscribiéndose a nuestras actualizaciones por correo electrónico .

 

CA Controller publishes 2023 payroll data for local governments

By Leave a Comment

Of 11,946 Contra Costa County employees, Administrator highest paid at $494,001

SACRAMENTO — State Controller Malia M. Cohen has released the 2023 self-reported payroll data for cities and counties on the Government Compensation in California website. The data covers 517,358 positions and a total of more than $40.72 billion in 2023 wages.

Users of the site can:

  • View compensation levels on maps and search by region;
  • Narrow results by name of the entity or by job title; and
  • Export raw data or custom reports.

The newly published data includes 462 cities and 52 counties. The City of Hayward had the highest average city employee wage in California, followed by Atherton, Pleasant Hill, and Beverly Hills. The counties with the highest average employee wages were Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Monterey, and Ventura. The city employee with the highest total wages in California was a police officer for the City of Santa Monica, while the top 20 highest-paid county employees work in health care professions.

Data for Contra Costa County show 11,946 employees worked sometime during the year and were paid $1,137,258,564 in wages and $470,014,925 in retirement and health contribution. The highest paid employee was the County Administrator with $494,001 total pay, which included $466,378 in regular pay, $20,423 in lump sum payment, described as paid to the employee for one-time cash-outs (including, but not limited to, paid excess vacation and sick leave, and legal settlements), and $7,200 for other pay, described as any other pay not reported as regular pay, overtime pay, or lump-sum pay such as car allowances, meeting stipends, incentive pay, bonus pay, etc.

California law requires cities, counties, and special districts to annually report compensation data to the State Controller. The State Controller also maintains and publishes state and CSU salary data. Five counties and 20 cities failed to file or provided incomplete or late information. San Francisco is both a city and a county; the website reports San Francisco as a city.

Since the website launched in 2010, State Controller’s Office has published pay and benefit information on more than two million government jobs in California, as reported annually by each entity.

As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.

 

CA Supreme Court removes Taxpayer Protection Act from Nov. ballot

By Leave a Comment

“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – California Supreme Court

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

By Allen D. Payton

In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed to continue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize

According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election

In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”

Proponents

Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative.  The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”

Supporters included the California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The campaign had received $17.8 million in contributions.

According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats.  They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”

View materials on the proposed ballot measure.

Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts

In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.

We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.

Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.

This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.

In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher.

We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.”

Opponents

The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, AFSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”

Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”

In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.

Court’s Decision

According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”

The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”

“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.

The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.

See Court ruling, here.

For more information about the ballot measure and the coalition that supported it visit www.taxpayerprotection.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Report: Bay Area needs $9.7 billion to subsidize 40,000 affordable homes in predevelopment pipeline

By Leave a Comment

Photo Credit Joey Kotfica. Source: MTC

Proposed $20 billion regional November bond measure seen as way to close the gap

By Kate Hartley, BAHFA & Justine Marcus, Enterprise Community Partners

Enterprise Community Partners (Enterprise) and the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) released the Bay Area Affordable Housing Pipeline 2024 Report, last month, which analyzes affordable housing projects in various stages of predevelopment and identifies solutions for moving them toward completion. The updated research reveals there are now 433 projects in various stages of predevelopment that would create more than 40,896 affordable homes across the nine-county Bay Area. These would account for nearly a quarter of the 180,000 affordable homes the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan determined are needed in the Bay Area by 2031. (See related article)

Affordable housing developments typically are supported by a capital “stack” investment that includes a commercial mortgage; Low-Income Housing Tax Credits; tax-exempt bonds; and additional local, regional and state dollars that fill the gap between the cost of the development and the financing secured through debt and equity. The new report calculates that the hundreds of Bay Area projects now in the predevelopment pipeline need $9.7 billion in public funds to move forward, and that a $20 billion regional bond measure proposed for the ballot in Bay Area counties this fall would help close this gap.

“We’ve been stuck in an affordable housing crisis that has overwhelmed the region. The November ballot presents an opportunity to unlock thousands of affordable homes for Bay Area residents,” said Heather Hood, VP and Northern California Market Leader at Enterprise. “We expect voters to have a chance to end our housing crisis and deliver the dignified, healthy homes the Bay Area community needs and deserves.”

Source: Enterprise Community Partners

The predevelopment pipeline includes projects in all nine Bay Area counties. These include more than 10,000 units in both Alameda and Santa Clara counties, with another 8,400 affordable homes pending development in San Francisco and more than 3,000 units in both San Mateo and Sonoma counties. Project pipelines in other Bay Area counties range from over 300 affordable homes in Solano County to 1,173 units in Marin County; nearly 1,500 homes in Napa County; and over 2,500 units in Contra Costa County. Each Bay Area city, town or county currently is working on its own to meet the challenges of housing affordability and homelessness.

“The need for affordable housing transcends jurisdictional boundaries. BAHFA’s proposed bond measure would finally allow our Bay Area to take a regional approach to a regional problem,” said BAHFA Director Kate Hartley. “With significant new resources for every county, we can build at scale, deliver equitable solutions, and create a better way to deliver the affordable homes Bay Area residents need.

The updated Bay Area Housing Pipeline research brief was presented at today’s regularly scheduled meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Bay Area Housing Finance Authority Oversight Committee.

About Enterprise Community Partners 

Enterprise is a national nonprofit that exists to make a good home possible for the millions of families without one. We support community development organizations on the ground, aggregate and invest capital for impact, advance housing policy at every level of government, and build and manage communities ourselves. Since 1982, we have invested $54 billion and created 873,000 homes across all 50 states – all to make home and community places of pride, power and belonging.

About the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority

Established by the state legislature in 2019, BAHFA’s mandate is to create regional solutions that meet the Bay Area’s affordable housing needs. It is the first regional housing finance authority in California. BAHFA works together with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Scathing State Audit confirms Labor Commissioner’s 47,000 backlogged claims at end of 2022-23

By 2 Comments

Payroll graphic source: CA State Auditor

Senator Glazer’s request leads to findings of workers cheated out of $63.9 million in past wages

Calls it a failure to act on behalf of workers

Report claims inadequate staffing, poor oversight have weakened protections for workers

SACRAMENTO – California Labor Commissioners have stood idly by as a massive backlog in wage theft cases piled up worth $63.9 million in lost wages to workers as its enforcement unit failed to enforce and collect wages in 76 percent of cases in which employers were found to owe wages, according to a report released Wednesday by Grant Parks, the California State Auditor.

The scathing audit came as a result of a March 2023 request through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee by Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, and Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego. It was based on news reports about the lack of wage theft enforcement.

Parks reported his findings to the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly about the “Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO).” Lilia García-Brower is the current state Labor Commissioner and was appointed to the position by Governor Newsom in July 2019. Neither her name or photo appears on the website for the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Ironically, according to the agency’s website, “The mission of the LCO is to ensure a just day’s pay in every workplace in the State and to promote economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws. By combating wage theft, protecting workers from retaliation, and educating the public, we put earned wages into workers’ pockets and help level the playing field for law-abiding employers.”

The audit “reviewed the backlog of wage claims submitted by workers from fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23, and determined that the LCO is not providing timely adjudication of wage claims for workers primarily because of insufficient staffing to process those claims.”

Furthermore, the state Auditor reported, “In addition to its delays in processing wage claims, the LCO has not been successful in collecting judgments from employers. A possible factor contributing to its low collection rate is that the Enforcement Unit does not consistently use all of the methods available to it for collecting payments owed to workers.”

Senator Glazer released this statement on the audit’s findings:

“The California State Auditor’s report makes clear that our State Labor Commissioner is a toothless enforcer of our wage theft laws. This deeply troubling assessment exposes a system that has fundamentally failed the workers it is supposed to protect. According to the auditor, there is a backlog of 47,000 claims registered on June 30, 2023. This is a state embarrassment and a stain on the department that workers depend on for justice.

The report also highlights an alarming increase in the average number of days to resolve claims, which has skyrocketed from 420 days in 2017/18 to an astounding 890 days in 2022/23. This drastic decline in efficiency is not just a statistic; it represents thousands of workers enduring prolonged injustice and financial hardship.

This lack of enforcement emboldens companies to exploit workers, knowing they can likely escape any real consequences, thus perpetuating and increasing further abuse. These findings paint a grim picture of an agency overwhelmed and ineffective, leaving workers vulnerable and without recourse. Immediate and decisive action to restore integrity and effectiveness to the Labor Commissioner’s office is needed. The workers of California deserve nothing less than a robust system that ensures timely and fair resolution of wage theft claims.”

The report can be found here: www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/the-california-labor-commissioners-office/

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

State Controller responds to Newsom’s May Budget Revision, issues April Cash Report

By Leave a Comment

“…contains challenging financial choices for the Governor and the Legislature…”- Malia Cohen

Fiscal year-to-date revenues still trend below expectations

SACRAMENTO — California State Controller Malia M. Cohen today, Friday, May 10, 2024, issued the following statement in response to Governor Gavin Newsom’s May budget revision:

“This morning, Governor Newsom released the May Revision to his proposed 2024-25 State Budget. The blueprint to address the remaining shortfall contains challenging financial choices for the Governor and the Legislature to maintain the state’s commitment to protecting essential programs and services and continuing critical investments in the state’s future.”

“As the state’s chief fiscal officer, it is my job to ensure the state has sufficient cash to pay our bills and to make certain that expenditures are transparent, accountable, and align with their intended purpose and expected outcomes. My office stands ready to assist both the Governor and the Legislature as they make their final push to finalize and approve the 2024-25 budget.”

In addition, Cohen today released her monthly cash report covering the state’s General Fund revenues, disbursements and actual cash balance for the fiscal year through April 30, 2024. The state ended April with $95.8 billion in unused borrowable resources, while fiscal year-to-date receipts continue below estimates contained in the 2024-25 Governor’s proposed budget.

The Governor’s Budget estimated that the state would collect nearly $16.3 billion in personal income taxes in April. As shown on the State Controller’s Office April 2024 Personal Income Tax Tracker webpage, the state exceeded the revenue target by approximately $150 million.

“With April personal income tax revenues just tracking with the most recent budget estimates, fiscal year-to-date revenues continue at lower-than-expected levels,” said Controller Cohen. “The high level of borrowable resources is due in large part to the $26 billion the state has prudently built up and reserved for rainy days and economic uncertainties. Maintaining enough cash to cushion against economic downturns has been one of California’s strengths in its credit ratings, and ensures the state will continue to meet its payment obligations.”

Fiscal year-to-date receipts through April were $169.8 billion, nearly $4.8 billion below the Governor’s Budget estimates, or 2.7 percent. The state’s cash position is $7.6 billion better than expected with disbursements of $184.9 billion for the fiscal year nearly $12.4 billion, or 6.3 percent, less than proposed budget projections.

As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on Twitter at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.

 

CPUC approves new billing structure that will cut residential electricity prices

By Leave a Comment

Graphic source: electricityrates.com

“Flat Rate” decision accelerates California’s clean energy transition

May 09, 2024 – SAN FRANCISCO – The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today approved a proposal to reduce the price of residential electricity through a new billing structure mandated by the state Legislature in Assembly Bill 205. This billing adjustment introduces a flat rate bill component and reduces the electricity usage rate. It lowers overall electricity bills on average for lower-income households and those living in regions most impacted by extreme weather events, while accelerating California’s clean energy transition by making electrification more affordable for all.

That’s in spite of the concerns of ratepayers and state legislators who, earlier this year, scrambled to repeal or modify the bill to avoid rates being based on income. The CPUC later scrapped the income-based utility bill scheme proposed by California’s largest utilities including PG&E. (See related articles here and here)

According to the approved proposal, “Today, California’s investor-owned electric utilities recover nearly all costs of providing electricity service through the volumetric (cost per unit) portion of each residential customer’s bill. However, a large portion of these costs are fixed costs that do not directly vary based on the electricity usage of the customer from whom the revenue is being collected, such as the costs of installing final line transformers that make it possible for customers to access the grid. Most utilities nationwide and many publicly-owned utilities in California assess fixed charges on customer bills to recover these fixed costs, consistent with the general ratemaking principle that rates should be based on cost causation

“As directed by Assembly Bill 205, this decision authorizes all investor[1]owned utilities to change the structure of residential customer bills by shifting the recovery of a portion of fixed costs from volumetric rates to a separate, fixed amount on bills without changing the total costs that utilities may recover from customers. As a result, this decision reduces the volumetric price of electricity (in cents per kilowatt hour) for all residential customers of investor-owned utilities.

The new billing structure more evenly allocates fixed costs among customers and will encourage customers to adopt electric vehicles and replace gas appliances with electric appliances because it will be less expensive to charge electric vehicles and operate electric appliances.

“This decision adopts a gradual, incremental approach to implementing Assembly Bill 205 requirements, including the requirement to offer income-graduated fixed charge amounts. The adopted billing structure will offer discounts based on the existing income-verification processes of the utilities’ California Alternate Rates for Energy and Family Electric Rate Assistance programs. The Commission will consider improvements to the new billing structure based on the initial results of implementation and a working group proposal in the next phase of this proceeding.

“Parties to this proceeding concurrently proposed how to implement the requirements of Assembly Bill 205. This decision adopts elements of several party proposals rather than adopting one party’s proposal.”

Read More: Fact Sheet on “Flat Rate” Decision

“This new billing structure puts us further on the path toward a decarbonized future, while enhancing affordability for low-income customers and those most impacted from climate change-driven heat events,” said CPUC President Alice Reynolds. “This billing adjustment makes it cheaper across the board for customers to charge an electric vehicle or run an electric heat pump, which will spur greater uptake of these technologies that are essential to transitioning us away from fossil fuels.”

Under the new billing structure:

  • The usage rate for electricity will be reduced by 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for all residential customers.
  • This change makes it more affordable for everyone to electrify homes and vehicles, regardless of income or location, because the price of charging an electric vehicle or running a heat pump is cheaper.
  • A portion of the fixed infrastructure costs—such as maintaining power lines and equipment— will be moved from the usage rate to a separate line item called the “Flat Rate” on customer bills.
  • The flat rate will be $24.15 per month, with low-income customers and customers living in deed-restricted affordable housing eligible for discounted flat rates of $6 or $12.

Customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) low-income assistance program will benefit from a discounted flat rate of $6 per month. Customers enrolled in the Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA), as well as those residing in deed-restricted affordable housing with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income, will qualify for a discounted flat rate of $12 per month.

The new billing structure does not introduce any additional fees or generate extra profits for utilities. Instead, it redistributes existing costs among customers. This approach aligns with billing practices employed across the nation and by most other utilities in California.

In the coming months, the CPUC will collaborate with investor-owned utilities on a customer communications plan to educate customers about the new billing structure. The new billing structure will be implemented starting in late 2025 and early 2026.

More information is available on the Docket Card and CPUC webpage for the proceeding.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

 

San Pablo City Council approves new homeless outreach services partnership 

By Leave a Comment

The H3 Partnership is with City of El Cerrito, Contra Costa County Health, Housing and Homeless.

48 unsheltered San Pablo residents in county’s 2023 count

By City of San Pablo

San Pablo, CA – On May 6, 2024, the San Pablo City Council approved a new agreement to expand vital homeless outreach services to the unhoused and most vulnerable populations in San Pablo, through a new regional partnership with the City of El Cerrito and Contra Costa County Health, Housing and Homeless (County H3).

This new regional partnership establishes a one-year program to cost-share a County H3 Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement (C.O.R.E.) services team that works to engage and stabilize unhoused individuals through consistent outreach to facilitate and/or deliver health and basic-need services and secure permanent housing services.

Since 2018, the City of San Pablo has contracted with County H3 services for a C.O.R.E. services team in partnership with the City of Richmond. The original contract was entered into on December 1, 2018, and recently extended through June 30, 2026.  For the past five (5) years, the County H3 C.O.R.E. program has been successfully funded and integrated into the operations of the San Pablo Police Department, who regularly coordinate with a current County H3 C.O.R.E. services team to provide these critical homeless outreach services to the San Pablo community.

Source: Contra Costa Health

In Fall 2023, a new collaboration opportunity emerged to expand these County H3 CORE services with other local cities, who also are facing simliar impacts from increased homeless populations in their communities.  These discussions have resulted in the formation of a new partnership with the City of El Cerrito and County H3 to expand and cost-share another County H3 C.O.R.E. services team in the West Contra County region.

“San Pablo saw an opportunity with the City of El Cerrito to expand homeless outreach services and to partner with another local City to expand the availability of these much-needed services for our most vulnerable populations,” stated San Pablo Mayor Patricia Ponce.  “Regional partnerships with other nearby cities are key, and the County H3 CORE program continues to play a vital role in providing these services to our local communities to address an ongoing and critical issue facing local cities – homelessness.”

Since July 1, 2023, and with the new City of El Cerrito and County H3 partnership, the San Pablo City Council has now approved a total investment of $442,771 of City General Funds to expand homeless outreach services to four days/week (32 hours) using dedicated County H3 C.O.R.E services through June 30, 2026.

“In a time with limited budgets and available funding, regional partnerships with local agencies have become paramount when you look how effective these types of services can become if you have the right partnerships in place,” stated San Pablo City Manager Matt Rodriguez. “San Pablo is grateful to forge regional approaches and partnerships with our local neighboring cities of El Cerrito and Richmond, and County H3.”

According to the 2023 Contra Costa County Homeless Point-In-Time Count, there were 48 unsheltered residents in San Pablo, a decrease of 19 since the 2020 count.

The City of San Pablo hopes to generate additional revenue capacity and identify new sources, including grant opportunities, to expand opportunities to procure additional homeless outreach service providers in the future.

Transparent California completes annual data collection of public pay, pensions

By Leave a Comment

Information on 2.7 million public employees from 2,518 agencies and 54 pension plans

Shows 15 police officers in Contra Costa were paid more than $500,000 in 2022, including the highest to El Cerrito Police Chief at over $850,000 plus, 10 others from his dep’t

Highest paid in the state was Vallejo Police Chief at $953,396.61

Transparent California, the state’s largest database of public pay and pension data, has completed data collection efforts for records detailing 2022 employee compensation and pension payments made by almost all public agencies in our state!

In the last year we’ve added data on 2.7 million public employees obtained from 2,518 agencies, and 1.4 million pension records from 54 pension plans to our database.  Added to our existing data from the last decade results in a total of 42 million records available on the site.  All obtained from the agency’s own pay data using requests made under the California Public Records Act, all are available online for free to anyone with an interest at http://transparentcalifornia.com.

Pay and benefit costs are the single largest expense in our government. Transparent California’s site provides members of the public with unprecedented visibility into that spending.  Knowing how government employees are personally benefiting from state and local spending is critical to ensuring true accountability in our government.

In 2022 over a million public employees, and over 125,000 pension recipients, enjoyed compensation packages totaling over $100,000 per year.  Using the data available we can see the City Manager in Norco was provided total compensation of $539,705, the school superintendent in Ontario-Montclair was paid $643,796, and a police lieutenant in Vallejo made $839,798.   

(Editor’s Note: According to an April 2021 ABC7 News report, Vallejo Police Lieutenant Herman Robinson, a 47-year employee with the department was fired. According to an April 2022 Vallejo Sun report, an arbitrator ordered Robinson be reinstated with back pay and be paid 10% interest on his back pay. He “was one of the most highly paid city of Vallejo employees and received $179,590 in base pay and $196,941 in overtime pay for calendar year 2020, according to Transparent California, a website that tracks California government worker salaries. With benefits included, Robinson earned $547,403.68.”

Thus, the $839,798 for 2022 included two years of compensation including the 10% interest on the back pay.)

UPDATE: That information was shared with Transparent California’s Director of Research, Todd Maddison. In response he wrote, “Thanks, appreciate the background.  We are rarely if ever given the ‘story’ behind any particular pay data, and with over 4 million records a year to collect we usually don’t investigate unless someone feels the number is erroneous. We do offer agencies the ability to make a note if they want so site users don’t think an outlier is ‘normal pay’, but we’re rarely taken up on that.

Meanwhile, in 2022 there were 67 police employees who made total pay only (excluding benefits) of over $400,000. I’ve attached a spreadsheet of police employees in case you’re interested.”

TC 2022SafetyEmployeesPolicePay 20240418

That spreadsheet shows the highest paid police officer in Contra Costa County in 2022 was Richmond Police Sergeant Florencio Rivera, whose total compensation was $512,432. A total of 15 officers in the county were paid more than $500,000 each, with 11 of them from the El Cerrito PD.

The Transparent California website gives ordinary taxpayers access to such data, illuminating the spending that drive state and local government deficits, including the $73 billion in red ink being projected by the state.

Data collection for 2023 compensation is now starting.  Those who want to monitor specific agencies can subscribe (free) or support the effort by sponsoring data collection from that agency.

Maddison noted, “2022 data collection was a great achievement.  We’re particularly proud our small donor funded team lapped the State Controller’s Office’s government-funded effort in K-12 education,  collecting data from 1055 districts to their 424.  We’re focused on giving the people of California the data they deserve to see how their tax dollars are being spent.”

For more information go to http://transparentcalifornia.com.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Californians face higher electricity rates based on income

By Leave a Comment

If you earn $28K per year or more; unless state legislature reverses course; 5 local legislators voted for bill

By Allen D. Payton

Bill Votes – AB-205 Energy. (ca.gov)

In 2022, the California legislature passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB205 – Energy into law, which requires that the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “shall, no later than July 1, 2024, authorize a fixed charge for default residential rates.” As a result, the CPUC is currently reviewing proposals for a tiered, fixed-price structure, as directed by the bill.

According to FOX Business, the state’s three main, investor-owned utilities – Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) – proposed a tiered rate plan: “Households earning $28,000-$69,000 would be charged an extra $20 to $34 per month. Those earning $69,000-$180,000 would pay $51 to $73 per month, and those earning more than $180,000 would pay a $85-to-$128 monthly surcharge.”

According to California Energy Markets, “The first version of the income-graduated fixed charge, or IGFC, could be implemented by SDG&E and SCE by 2026, according to Freedman. PG&E is in the process of changing its billing system, he said, so its implementation would likely be in 2027.”

That’s on top of the 13% increase for both electricity and natural gas rates for PG&E customers approved by a unanimous vote of the CPUC last November that went into effect on January 1, 2024. Plus, another vote on March 7 for $4-$6 in additional monthly fees for the typical ratepayer that will take effect in April, was approved for PG&E to recover $516 million in costs for wildfire mitigation, gas safety and electric modernization.

According to a Canary Media report, “The utilities are also proposing to significantly lower the per-kilowatt-hour charges that customers pay to counterbalance the big increase in fixed charges, and to structure both fixed and volumetric charges in a way that allows lower-income customers to save money overall. Still, the proposal, if enacted, would instantly make California the home of the nation’s highest monthly utility fixed fees, according to analysis by clean energy research firm EQ Research.”

The IGFC would require the CPUC to evaluate every ratepayer’s income annually in order to assess the appropriate fee.

Local Legislators Voted for Bill

Five of Contra Costa’s state legislators supported AB205 on party-line votes including Assemblymembers Tim Grayson, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson and State Senator Nancy Skinner. The first four each voted for the bill, twice.

Assemblyman Jim Frazier didn’t vote on the bill in 2021 and State Senator Steve Glazer didn’t vote on AB205 during the State Senate’s floor vote in 2022. Newsom signed the bill into law on June 30, 2022.

Details of New Law

As of July 1, 2022, the applicable portion of the law now reads as follows:

“SEC. 10. Section 739.9 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

(d)  The commission may adopt new, or expand existing, fixed charges for the purpose of collecting a reasonable portion of the fixed costs of providing electrical service to residential customers. The commission shall ensure that any approved charges do all of the following:

(1) Reasonably reflect an appropriate portion of the different costs of serving small and large customers.

(2) Not unreasonably impair incentives for conservation, energy efficiency, and beneficial electrification and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

(3) Are set at levels that do not overburden low-income customers.

(e)(1) For the purposes of this section and Section 739.1, the commission may authorize fixed charges for any rate schedule applicable to a residential customer account. The fixed charge shall be established on an income-graduated basis with no fewer than three income thresholds so that a low-income ratepayer in each baseline territory would realize a lower average monthly bill without making any changes in usage. The commission shall, no later than July 1, 2024, authorize a fixed charge for default residential rates.

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, ‘income-graduated’ means that low-income customers pay a smaller fixed charge than high-income customers.”

Source: Energy Sage published 3/10/24

Californians Pay 27% More for Electricity Than National Average

According to Energy Sage, California residents currently pay 31 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to the national average of 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. “On average, California residents spend about $256 per month on electricity. That adds up to $3,072 per year. That’s 27% higher than the national average electric bill of $2,426.”

Effort to Reverse Course

Now, some members of the legislature are trying to backpedal on their votes and stop the IGFC increases from being approved. As they had unsuccessfully attempted last September, on Jan. 30, Republican lawmakers tried to bring an immediate vote to repeal AB 205 to the Senate floor, but Democrats who have the majority, voted to table the motion.

That same day, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, (D-Thousand Oaks) and 10 others introduced a bill to repeal AB205. According to Irwin’s press release about the new bill, “The CPUC has had the authority to implement a fixed rate charge, up to $10, since 2015, but has declined to do so. I see no need to rush now. It’s time to put some reasoning back into how we charge for electricity in California.” Bauer-Kahan is listed as a principal coauthor. It was also introduced in the State Senate.

According to the aforementioned Canary Media report, “The newly introduced bill, AB 1999, would limit the CPUC to adding a fixed charge of no greater than $10 a month on customers’ bills to pay for the rising costs of maintaining the state’s utility grids, regardless of household income.”

The bill is in the committee process, was referred to the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Electricity. If approved it will then head to the floors of both houses of the state legislature for votes and if passed, the bill will head to the governor’s desk for his signature or veto.

3/27/24 UPDATE: According to Sylvie Ashford, Energy & Climate Policy Analyst for The Utility Reform Network (TURN) which supports the implementation of an income-graduated fixed charge, and is one of the authors of the organization’s IGFC proposal,

  • “The IOUs are no longer proposing the charge levels that you cite (e.g. up to $128 per month). The CPUC has already ruled that the first iteration of the fixed charge will have income tier cut-offs based only on the existing CARE/FERA programs, with no ‘high-income’ tier. The IOUs submitted new proposals in the fall, with a max charge of $51-$73 (page 5 of their brief).
  • It’s not that utilities will “also” lower $/kWh rates. The fixed charge itself lowers rates, as is comprised only of costs that are included in rates today. It shifts some fixed costs out of electricity rates and into a separate line item.
  • Thus, your headline that “Californians face higher electricity rates based on income” is incorrect. All customers will pay lower electricity rates (15% lower under TURN’s proposal). Some higher income customers will see higher overall bills only if their assigned fixed charge exceeds their savings from the reduced rates. (For example, TURN’s proposal has a maximum monthly fixed charge of $30, and we estimate those customers will see $3-7 bill increases, depending on their usage).”

Iin addition, she shared, “TURN believes that the fixed charge presents a critical opportunity to reduce low-income energy bills in the state. TURN also believes much more is needed to make bills affordable and intervenes widely at the CPUC to oppose rate increases. A few quick points:

  • The fixed charge will not increase utility revenue/profits; it removes costs from rates and shifts them to a separate line item on your bill.
  • This will reduce electricity rates ($/kWh) for all Californians, making it more feasible to operate electric vehicles and appliances.
  • Because the new line item is based on income, it will also reduce overall bills for low-income Californians (likely to be defined as the low-income CARE/FERA discount programs, which cover 30% of the state) and it will make electricity bills less regressive.
  • TURN strongly opposes the joint proposal of the utilities for fixed charges, and the CPUC is not considering it. The CPUC has already ruled that the first iteration of the fixed charge will have income tier cut-offs based only on the existing CARE/FERA programs, with no ‘high-income’ tier, so the average fixed charge will be low (TURN proposes an average of $23.50, which is the same charge already offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District).

Ashford was asked to explain how, if the cost of providing electricity does not differ from one user to the next in one of the three utility company’s service areas, it’s fair to charge one customer more based on their income. She was also asked weren’t renewals supposed to reduce electricity costs and aren’t we relying more on them, now for electricity generation in California,

Ashford responded, to your questions about the fairness of paying based on income, and why rates have been increasing when generation keeps getting cheaper (thanks to renewables): the problem is that your $/kWh electricity rates today are largely comprised of costs that have nothing to do with your personal usage. They are bloated with the fixed costs of the grid, like the utilities’ wildfire mitigation programs and infrastructure projects.

As a result, a UC Berkeley study found that California’s electric rates are highly regressive; low-income households pay more of their income on shared system costs. Households in hot climates, that need to use more electricity to keep cool, also pay more than their fair share of these costs. On the flipside, solar customers are paying less than their fair share, which has created a ‘cost shift’ that hikes rates for everyone else (source).

TURN is a strong advocate of reducing utility spending, which is the most important step to reduce rates. The fixed charge alone doesn’t address that problem, as it simply shuffles the collection of existing costs, but it will make bills more affordable for those that are disproportionately burdened by shared system costs.”