• Home
  • About The Herald
  • Local Agencies
  • Daily Email Update
  • Legal Notices
  • Classified Ads

Contra Costa Herald

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

  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Business
  • Community
  • Crime
  • Dining
  • Education
  • Faith
  • Health
  • News
  • Politics & Elections
  • Real Estate

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

May 29, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

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.

Filed Under: Employment, Finances, Government, Jobs & Economic Development, Labor & Unions, Legal, News, State of California

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

May 10, 2024 By Publisher 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.

 

Filed Under: Finances, Government, News, State of California

CPUC approves new billing structure that will cut residential electricity prices

May 9, 2024 By Publisher 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.

 

 

Filed Under: Energy, Government, News

San Pablo City Council approves new homeless outreach services partnership 

May 9, 2024 By Publisher 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.

Filed Under: Government, Homeless, News, West County

Transparent California completes annual data collection of public pay, pensions

May 9, 2024 By Publisher 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.

 

Filed Under: Finances, Government, News

Californians face higher electricity rates based on income

March 16, 2024 By Publisher 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.”

 

Filed Under: Energy, Government, News, State of California

Supervisor Glover seeks people to serve on county committees, commissions, boards

March 8, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

District 5 residents who want to get involved in improving their communities

Applications due March 29

Supervisor Federal Glover announced opportunities for District 5 residents to make decisions affecting their communities. “A lot of policies begin in these county commissions and boards,” said Glover. Commissions are appointed by the Board of Supervisors based on his recommendation. Interested individuals may apply online at: https://contra-costa.granicus.com/boards/forms/321/apply/ or they can contact Supervisor Glover’s office at (925) 608-4200. Completed applications must be received in Supervisor Glover’s office by close of business Friday, March 29, 2023.

Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District Fire Advisory Commission: reviews and advises on annual operations and capital budgets; reviews Fire District expenditures; advises the Fire Chief on district service matters; and serves as a liaison between the Board of Supervisors and the community served by the fire district. The seats that are open are: 1 Regular Seat (Appointee 2). Meetings are held on the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at 746 Loring Avenue, Crockett, CA 94525. The current seat opening has a term ending December 31, 2024. For information call Dean Colombo at (925) 787-0790.

Emergency Medical Care Committee: Role is to review the County’s ambulance and other emergency services as required in State law; and serves in an advisory capacity to the County Board of Supervisors, and to the County EMS Agency, on matters relating to emergency medical services as directed by the Board. The Committee meets at the Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Administrative Office, 777 Arnold Drive, Martinez, CA, from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The current vacancy is for District V – Consumer Representative with a term ending September 30, 2024. For information, call Rachel Morris (925) 608-5454. Rachel.Morris@cchealth.org

Measure X Community Advisory Board: The Measure X Community Advisory Board was established by the Board of Supervisors on February 2, 2021 to advise the Board of Supervisors on the use of Measure X transactions and use tax funds. The current vacancy is for the District 5 Seat – Alternate seat with a term ending March 31, 2025. The meetings are normally scheduled for Wednesday’s at 5:00 p.m. For information call Adam Nguyen at (925) 655-2048. Adam.Nguyen@cao.cccounty.us

Measure X Community Fiscal Oversight Committee: The Measure X Community Fiscal Oversight Committee was established by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year to advise the Board of Supervisors on financial audits of Measure X tax funds. The current vacancy is for the District 5 Seat with a term ending December 31, 2024. The meeting dates and times are to be determined. For information call Adam Nguyen at (925) 655-2048. Adam.Nguyen@cao.cccounty.us

Mental Health Commission: The Mental Health Commission was established to review and assess the community’s mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems, in order to advise the Board of Supervisors concerning local mental health services and programs. The current vacancies are for the District 5 Seat 3 with a term ending June 30, 2027. The Mental Health Commission meets the first Wednesday of each month from 4:30-6:30 p.m. For information call Angela Beck at (925) 313-9553. Angela.Beck@cchealth.org

 

Filed Under: Government

USDA announces approval of D-SNAP for California disaster areas

March 2, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

For recipients in Contra Costa County ZIP codes 94528, 94596 and 94516

By Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Agriculture

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced Friday, March 1, 2024, that low-income California residents recovering from severe storms and power outages beginning January 21, 2024, could be eligible for a helping hand from the USDA’s Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP).

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that approximately 4,500 households that may not normally be eligible under regular Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules may qualify for D-SNAP – if they meet certain criteria, including the disaster income limits and have qualifying disaster-related expenses.

“USDA is committed to making sure that those experiencing the impact of the recent storms get the food they need,” Vilsack said. “We recognize that the crisis doesn’t end when the rain stops. For families in these stricken areas, it may be just beginning.”

To be eligible for D-SNAP, a household must live or work in an identified disaster area, have been affected by the disaster, and meet certain D-SNAP eligibility criteria. Eligible households will receive one month of benefits – equal to the maximum monthly amount for a SNAP household of their size – that they can use to purchase groceries at SNAP-authorized stores or from select retailers online to meet their temporary food needs as they settle back home following the disaster. California will operate its D-SNAP application for seven non-consecutive days, beginning March 7, 2024, through March 8, 2024, and March 11, 2024, through March 15, 2024. California will share additional information about D-SNAP application dates and locations through local media.

On Feb. 29, 2024, FNS approved the California Department of Social Services (DSS) request to issue mass replacements to impacted households. This waiver approval allows households to receive replacement of benefits as stated in the approval as a result of power outages due to winter storms. The waiver applies to 121 zip codes in the following 27 counties including 94528, 94596 and 94516 in Contra Costa.

The timing of D-SNAP varies with the unique circumstances of each disaster, but always begins after commercial channels of food distribution have been restored and families are able to purchase and prepare food at home. Before operating a D-SNAP, a state must ensure that the proper public information, staffing, and resources are in place.

Although current SNAP households in the identified areas are not eligible for D-SNAP, they may request supplemental SNAP benefits to raise their allotment to the maximum amount for their household size for one month if they don’t already receive that amount.

The D-SNAP announcement today is the latest in a battery of USDA actions taken to help California residents cope with recent severe storms and its aftermath, which also include:

  • Approving a mass replacements waiver for SNAP participants, allowing households to receive replacement of benefits lost due to power outages. This waiver applies to 121 zip codesin 27 counties.
  • Approving a 10-day reporting waiver for food purchased with SNAP benefits that were lost as a result of power outages in 14 counties: Lake, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada Orange, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma and Ventura.
  • Approving California’s DSS non-congregate feeding request for Child Care Food Program (CCFP) institutions and sponsoring organizations under the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), allowing program operators to serve meals in a non-congregate setting, adjust the time of meal service, and allow parent and guardian meal pick up.

For more information about this and other available aid, callers from California can dial 2-1-1 or 1-800-621-3362. For more information about CalFresh visit California’s Department of Social Services.

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service works to end hunger and improve food and nutrition security through a suite of more than 16 nutrition assistance programs, such as the school breakfast and lunch programs, WIC and SNAP. Together, these programs serve 1 in 4 Americans over the course of a year, promoting consistent and equitable access to healthy, safe, and affordable food essential to optimal health and well-being. FNS also provides science-based nutrition recommendations through the co-development of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. FNS’s report, “Leveraging the White House Conference to Promote and Elevate Nutrition Security: The Role of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service,” highlights ways the agency will support the Biden-Harris Administration’s National Strategy, released in conjunction with the historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in September 2022. To learn more about FNS, visit www.fns.usda.gov and follow @USDANutrition.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Food, Government, News

SNAP food replacement due to widespread power outages during strong winter storm in California announced

March 2, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Julie Yee, Public Affairs Specialist, Western Regional Office, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced Friday, March 1, 2024, that households impacted by widespread power outages that started on February 4th as the result of a strong winter storm in California could be eligible for replacement of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/CalFresh benefits. This is one of many recent steps USDA has taken to ensure California residents in need have food to eat.

Rather than require SNAP households to report food losses individually, USDA allowed the State of California to approve automatic mass replacements for residents of certain zip codes who lost food as a result of the power outages and winter storm. The waiver applies to specified zip codes from 27 counties. More details will be made available through the  California Department of Social Services (CDSS).

SNAP participants in areas hardest hit by the power outages may have a portion of their February benefits replaced. SNAP recipients residing in other affected areas may request replacement benefits by filing an affidavit with the local office attesting to disaster-related loss.

Additionally, USDA has approved CDSS’ request to waive the 10-day reporting requirement for replacement of food purchased with SNAP benefits that were lost as a result of power outages due to the winter storms that began in February. The waiver is in effect through March 4, 2024.

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service is ready to consider additional waivers that may be needed to help program participants who have lost food due to widespread power outages and to simplify the application process for affected households, upon request from the CDSS. Individuals seeking more information about this and other available aid should dial 2-1-1. For more information about California SNAP, visit https://www.cdss.ca.gov/food-nutrition/calfresh.

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service works to end hunger and improve food and nutrition security through a suite of 16 nutrition assistance programs, such as the school breakfast and lunch programs, WIC and SNAP. Together, these programs serve 1 in 4 Americans over the course of a year, promoting consistent and equitable access to healthy, safe, and affordable food essential to optimal health and well-being. FNS also provides science-based nutrition recommendations through the co-development of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. FNS’s report, “Leveraging the White House Conference to Promote and Elevate Nutrition Security: The Role of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service,” highlights ways the agency will support the Biden-Harris Administration’s National Strategy, released in conjunction with the historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in September 2022. To learn more about FNS, visit www.fns.usda.gov and follow @USDANutrition.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

 

Filed Under: Food, Government, News

Payton Perspective: It’s time for reparations for descendants of African slaves in America

February 23, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

“15th Amendment, or the Darkey’s millenium: 40 acres of land and a mule.” Man and boy with cart in front of the Putnam House, Palatka, Fla. Source: The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection, from The New York Public Library. (1850 – 1930). (PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Objects depicting racist and/or stereotypical imagery or language may be offensive and disturbing, but the National Museum of African American History and Culture in which this photo is displayed aims to include them in the Collection to present and preserve the historical context in which they were created and used. Objects of this type provide an important historical record from which to study and evaluate racism).

Using federal land, not cash

By Allen D. Payton, Publisher

During this Black History Month, as I’ve been arguing for several years, I believe it’s time for all Americans to agree the promised reparations to freed slave families following the Civil War in 1865 should finally be fulfilled – but to their descendants.

First, let me point out the fact – especially to my fellow Republicans who might oppose them – that reparations were first, a Republican idea, ordered by Union Army Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and supported by President Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president. As a reminder, the Republican Party was formed to abolish slavery, and Lincoln and the Union Army successfully fought the Civil War to accomplish that goal.

40 Acres & A Mule

You may have heard the phrase “40 acres and a mule”, which was made more popularly known by movie actor and director Spike Lee who labeled his production company “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks”. But you may not know that the phrase originated with reparations. That’s because Special Field Orders No. 15 were issued by Sherman on January 16, 1865, before the Civil War ended that May, granting “a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground” to families, “made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States He also later ordered the army to lend mules to the freed slaves for their farming efforts.

The orders included the confiscation of 400,000 acres of plantation land along “a strip of (Atlantic) coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland 30 miles in from the coast.” The land was to be divided into parcels on which approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Black people then living in the area would be settled.

The purpose was to provide for the freed slaves both a means to earn a living and support themselves, and the result would have been giving them an asset that could be passed on to future generations.

According to History.com, “The freedmen set out to begin working their new land immediately, with a group of 1,000 settling on Georgia’s Skidaway Island. In subsequent months as many as 40,000 freedmen settled on the redistributed land.”

Order Rescinded

Unfortunately, after Lincoln’s assassination just three months after the order was issued, his running mate on the National Union Party ticket in 1864, Democrat Vice President Andrew Johnson, following his ascension to the presidency, rescinded Sherman’s order. He returned to Confederate owners the 400,000 acres of land. Thus, the freed slaves were denied the land they had been granted and reparations were never offered to them by the federal government, again.

Why Reparations Now?

Some people argue that it’s been over 150 years, so why do Black Americans need reparations, today? My initial response is that they’re long past due. But my main answer is two-fold. One is the fact that a major issue among most Blacks in the U.S., today is a lack of asset ownership, including homes, real estate, investments and businesses. For example, the average Black family has one-tenth the assets of the average white family in the U.S.

Disparity in Household Wealth

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Wealth and Asset Ownership Detailed Tables: 2020, Table 1. Median Value of Assets for Households, from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Survey Year 2021, the median net worth for all households was $140,800. However, when broken down by ethnicity, the median “Black alone” household had one-tenth the assets of the median “White alone” household, or $18,430 compared to $178,500. The disparity is even greater when compared to the median “White alone, non-Hispanic” household which had assets of $217,500.

My argument for the disparity and second one in favor of why reparations, now is the fact that for nearly 250 years, almost all Blacks in the U.S. couldn’t own property because they were property, nor did they get paid. They also couldn’t get an education. So, the rest of us, whose ancestors were never subjected to the horrors and evil of chattel slavery, in effect had a 250-year head start!

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments about the Irish, which is my ancestry, and how they were mistreated, or others who were indentured servants. But those were not the same as being a slave sold, bought and owned by someone else, as well as their future generations to follow.

A Federal Responsibility, Not State or Local

Second, reparations are not a state or local issue, but a federal responsibility. Long before the day the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, and in spite of the fact it enshrined the statement that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and then from the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1789, to Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, our federal government allowed slavey. It continued for another 65 years after the Constitution was ratified on May 29, 1790, for a total of 246 years since the first African slaves were brought to our country in 1619. So, again, reparations are a federal responsibility.

(A side, historical note on the Three-Fifths Compromise and clauses in the Constitution. It was not intended by the framers to further devalue the lives of slaves, but to reduce the influence in Congress by the slave states, by preventing them from having additional members in the House of Representatives and a greater number of electors in presidential elections. The slave states wanted to include the slaves in the census count, while the free states didn’t want them included at all. The compromise determined that three out of every five slaves were counted when establishing a state’s total population. A benefit to the slave states was it reduced the amount of taxes they had to pay to the federal government.

In Article I, Section II, Clause III of the Constitution, the Three-Fifths Compromise is stated as:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

See also James Madison’s writings in Federalist Paper No. 54 in which he argues that slaves were both property and people, and thus required some degree of representation).

But I digress. Back to the issue at hand.

Source: Bureau of Land Management

Reparations Are About Land, An Asset

Third, to my Democrat friends I remind them, reparations were initially land and that’s what they still should be, today, not cash. They should be about helping Black Americans own an asset for their use, from which to generate income and to pass on to future generations.

The federal government owns over one-fourth of the land in the U.S. According to a 2020 report and 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service, it amounts to “roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States”.

Looking at a map you’ll see the federal land is “heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), 3 where the federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area.” That includes 45.4% of California, 60.9% of Alaska, 38.6% of Arizona, 36.2% of Colorado, 20.2% of Hawaii, 61.9% of Idaho, 29.0% of Montana, 80.1% of Nevada, 52.5% of Oregon, 63.1% of Utah, 28.6% of Washington and 46.7% of Wyoming. The federal government also owns 12.9% of Florida.

Much of that land is either in national parks (79.9 million acres), in national forests (192.9 million acres) or is farm and ranch land leased to farmers and ranchers. Five federal agencies administer most of it, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. with the Department of Defense controlling 8.8 million acres, and 4% administered by multiple other agencies.

So, my proposal is to give to all Black Americans, who can prove they are a descendant of a slave in America, some of that federal land. It can either be given out on an individual or family basis.

While not all Black Americans are descendants of a slave in the U.S. – for example, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose father descended from a Jamaican slave, would not qualify – for simple calculation purposes let’s say all of them are. Blacks currently make up about 13% of the U.S. population of about 330 million people for a total of 40 million people.

If we gave every Black American one, two or even five acres, that would be 40, 80 or as much as 200 million acres which would still leave 440 million acres remaining for ownership and use by the federal government. (Frankly, I don’t understand why the federal government needs to own so much land, especially ranch land for grazing, anyway.)

The new owners could do what they want with the land: farm it, drill it for oil, gas or water, mine it, lease it, swap it with other reparation land recipients, build a home on it, borrow against it, or perhaps form joint ventures with neighboring property owners and develop new communities, even cities. But I believe the one stipulation should be the land could only be sold to another descendant of an American slave. Then, it could be passed on to future generations.

Another argument I’ve heard or read about reparations is, why should people today have to pay anything when neither they nor their family ever owned slaves. This approach addresses that concern. By giving out federal land, there would be no cost to current taxpayers. While it might reduce revenue to the federal government from a reduction in leased lands, that’s a small price to pay for addressing this 160-year-old matter once and for all time.

Source: Congressional Research Service

No One Has to Participate

Some Black people have stated publicly they don’t need or want the help and find it offensive that they be offered reparations. Let’s be clear, no one who is qualified has to participate in a federal reparations program. But I believe most would. Who wouldn’t want free land?

Those who chose to participate would, of course, have to prove their status, and some form of reparations commission or government agency would have to be formed to verify their status and manage the distribution of the land grants. Once verified, program participants would be entered into a lottery and the property could be distributed in periodic drawings. It could even be televised nationally as the participants’ numbers are drawn, and advertising could be sold, and the revenue shared with the federal government to make up for the loss of land lease revenue.

One Time Program May Take Several Years

To sum up, I say it’s time, once and for all, to fulfill the commitment of reparations ordered in 1865 and give portions of federally owned land to the descendants of slaves in the U.S. It might take several years to accomplish, but I believe we should and could start right away. Once the land has been distributed and all who want it received their share, then that would be it. We’d be done. Everyone would be happy, and there could be no more complaining. The agency would be disbanded, the issue would be put to rest, and it would be up to the new landowners to make do with theirs what they can.

Now, all we need is for Members of Congress and U.S. Senators to introduce the idea and move it forward.

Filed Under: Government, History, Opinion

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • …
  • 42
  • Next Page »
Monicas-11-25
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

Copyright © 2026 · Contra Costa Herald · Site by Clifton Creative Web