Contra Costa Herald

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

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.”

 

Homeless, Drug Addiction, Retail Theft Reduction Act to reform Prop 47 collects 75% of required California voters’ signatures

By Leave a Comment

Over 400,000 have signed petitions to place the measure that will stop theft and fentanyl crimes onto the November 2024 ballot

Gains support of Californians Against Retail and Residential Theft, over 30 mayors & local leaders

See below to get petition and help gather signatures

Over 400,000 California voters have signed the petition to place the Homeless, Drug Addiction, Retail Theft Reduction Act on the November 2024 ballot.

“We have seen a record number of voters seeking to sign the petition to place this measure on the ballot – sometimes waiting in line to do so,” said campaign chair Greg Totten who is also chief executive officer for the California District Attorneys Association. “This is consistent with polling that has shown that 70% of likely California voters support the Homeless, Drug Addiction, Retail Theft Reduction Act. The measure is commonsense and injects accountability back into our laws for repeat offenders of theft and for crimes involving fentanyl and other serious drug crimes.”

Californians Against Retail and Residential Theft endorses proposed initiative to reform Proposition 47

Californians Against Retail and Residential Theft (CARRT) announced last week its support for the proposed initiative called the Homeless, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act.

“Our current system puts Californians at risk as crime continues to rise without any real repercussions. That is why Californians Against Retail and Residential Theft is supporting the Homeless, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Initiative,” said Matt Ross, spokesman for Californians Against Retail and Residential Theft.

“The initiative focuses on repeat offenders of retail crime. It provides an opportunity for those with substance abuse and mental health problems to seek help through diversion programs. At the same time, it also ensures that there are real consequences for individuals who continue to break the law.”

“Moreover, this initiative is a significant step towards putting an end to retail and residential theft in both Main Street and neighborhood areas.”

According to data from the Public Policy Institute of California, there has been a significant increase in commercial shoplifting, with a 28.7% rise in 2022 alone. Commercial burglary and robbery have also seen an increase of 5.8% and 9%, respectively. Furthermore, a recent survey revealed that 88% of retailers are experiencing more aggressive and violent shoplifters compared to the previous year.

CARRT is a diverse coalition consisting of over 200 business associations, local groups, and victim organizations. Their main goal is to advocate for California officials to take action and equip law enforcement with the necessary tools to reduce theft. Prominent members of the coalition include local Chambers of Commerce, California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, California Black Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association, California Peace Officers Association, Crime Victims United, Klaas Kids Foundation, and the National Federation of Independent Business.

CARRT has been engaging in discussions with local officials, law enforcement, and legislators to ensure that they comprehend the true impact of retail and residential crime. They aim to provide public safety officials with additional resources to effectively address this problem. For more information about CARRT, please visit their website at www.carrt.org.

Over 30 mayors and local elected leaders endorse Prop 47 reform initiative

Bipartisan support continues to grow with over 30 mayors and local elected officials from across the state have endorsed the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, Retail Theft Reduction Act. The measure will increase community safety by holding those who repeatedly steal or traffic hard drugs accountable. The measure has collected 75% of the needed signatures from California voters to place it on the November ballot.

“Our city has continued to prioritize safety for our residents, businesses and visitors. We realize that the laws must adapt to the circumstances we see on our streets today. Retail theft and drug offenders repeat their crimes without any accountability or consequence which is why I am supporting this ballot measure,” said Santa Monica Mayor Phil Brock. “We need smart changes to Prop 47 so that we can stop crime and hold repeat offenders accountable. Consequences act as a deterrent while at the same time, this measure prioritizes effective drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. This ballot measure will provide the tools our city needs to improve community safety.”

Local mayors and elected officials from every region across the state continue to endorse a measure that balances accountability and rehabilitation programs.

Bay Area Elected Leaders

Mayor Matt Mahan, City of San Jose

Mayor London Breed, City and County of San Francisco

Mayor Lily Mei, City of Fremont

Mayor Carmen Montano, City of Milpitas

Vice Mayor Renee Golder, City of Santa Cruz

Councilmember Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, City of Santa Cruz
Former Mayor Ryan Coonerty, City of Santa Cruz

Vice Mayor Sherry Hu, City of Dublin

Councilmember Liang Chao, City of Cupertino (title for identification purposes only)

Councilmember Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino (title for identification purposes only)

Mayor Yan Zhao, City of Saratoga

Councilmember Rishi Kumar, City of Saratoga

Councilmember Javed Ellahie, City of Monte Sereno

Northern & Central CA Elected Leaders

Mayor Jerry Dyer, City of Fresno

Mayor Karen Goh, City of Bakersfield

Supervisor Rich Desmond, Sacramento County

Southern California Elected Leaders

Mayor Phil Brock, City of Santa Monica
Mayor Mark Arapostathis, City of La Mesa
Mayor Richard Bailey, City of Coronado
Mayor Keith Blackburn, City of Carlsbad

Mayor John Franklin, City of Vista
Mayor Lesa Heebner, City of Solana Beach
Mayor Rebecca Jones, City of San Marcos
Mayor Tony Kranz, City of Encinitas
Mayor John McCann, City of Chula Vista
Mayor John Minto, City of Santee

Mayor Ron Morrison, City of National City
Mayor Esther Sanchez, City of Oceanside
Mayor Steve Vaus, City of Poway
Mayor Bill Wells, City of El Cajon
Mayor Dane White, City of Escondido

A survey of likely California voters found that 70% of voters support the title and summary of the Homeless, Drug Addiction, Retail Theft Reduction Act. The overwhelming support was consistent across every demographic and geography including the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Furthermore, 89% of likely voters support amending Proposition 47 for stronger penalties for those engaged in repeated retail theft and trafficking hard drugs like fentanyl. The measure also includes incentives to complete drug and mental health treatment for people who are addicted to hard drugs. The survey was conducted online from November 8-November 13, 2023, with a margin of error of +/- 2.28%.

To qualify the measure for the November 2024 ballot, the law requires 546,651 valid signatures. The campaign is required to notify the Secretary of State after 25% of the signatures from California voters have been collected.

For more information, go to www.CASafeCommunities.com and to obtain a petition and help gather signatures visit https://blog.electkevinkiley.com/prop47/ .

Impressive spring wildflower blooms anticipated in desert state parks

By Leave a Comment

Cutline: Top: Current wildflower bloom at Anza-Borrego Desert SP. Bottom left: Sparse flowers are starting to show at Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve State Natural Reserve (SNR). Bottom right: Goldfields currently adorn the Tule Elk SNR. Source: CA State Parks

Public asked to keep the beauty in the bloom by staying on designated trails and taking only photos, not flowers.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – This spring, California’s desert state parks could potentially be adorned with a sea of rainbow colors as the wildflower season is expected to be an impressive one, and California State Parks is asking all visitors to enjoy them responsibly.

“In recent years, California has been lucky to see spectacular wildflower blooms in many public lands, including in state parks,” said State Parks Director Armando Quintero. “We welcome all Californians and visitors from around the world to experience this natural phenomenon and ask all to keep the ‘Beauty in the Bloom’ by staying on designated trails and taking only photos, not flowers.”

Current Bloom Situation

Depending on the park, visitors may see colorful lupine, coreopsis, desert sunflowers, evening or brown-eyed primroses, desert bells, desert poppies or desert lilies.

Detailed information, in Spanish and English, on this year’s potential wildflower blooms and park rules is available at parks.ca.gov/WildflowerBloom.

Recreate Responsibly

For those wishing to visit areas where the blooms are popping, State Parks is providing visitors with tips on how to explore safely and responsibly, especially in the desert parks where the landscapes may have changed due to recent storms.

Understand the Area

  • Cell coverage can be spotty or nonexistent in some parks—be prepared.
  • Read about your state park destination online and download a map prior to your visit, especially if you are visiting a desert. Many GPS and map apps will take you to dirt roads requiring four-wheel drive vehicles.
  • Know your vehicle’s limits. Know which areas allow off-highway vehicle recreation.
  • Visit the parks during the week and arrive early to beat the crowds.
  • Remember to pull off the roadway when viewing wildflowers, wildlife or to take photos. Please leave roadways clear for vehicle traffic.
  • Leave an itinerary of your trip with a family member or friend with information such as time of departure and expected return, site visit location and names of everyone in your group. This will ensure law enforcement personnel have a better understanding of your location in the event of a rescue.

Check the Weather

  • While planning your trip, check weather conditions. Be prepared and plan for all types of weather.
  • Make sure your equipment and clothing are appropriate for the expected weather.

Respect the Landscapes

  • Each park has unique landscapes. Stay on designated trails whenever possible. Tread lightly in the desert. Do not trample flowers.
  • When viewing the blooms, take only pictures. Flower picking is prohibited.
  • If dogs are permitted, they must remain on leash, on designated roads, in campgrounds and in picnic areas. Dogs are not allowed on hiking trails, in the backcountry or in the wildflower fields. Do not leave dogs unattended in your vehicles—temperatures can reach lethal levels.
  • Drone use may be prohibited. If drone use is allowed, a filming permit from individual state park units must be requested.
  • Help keep the landscapes pristine, leaving it better than when you arrived by packing out anything you packed in—pack it in, pack it out.

Know Your Body Limitations

  • Bring plenty of food and water. There are often no restaurants, gasoline stations or stores near the bloom areas.
  • Drink plenty of water prior to your visit to remain hydrated and avoid heat-related emergencies.
  • Outdoor conditions can change quickly, especially in the desert. Bring sunscreen, a hat, layers of clothing and closed-toe shoes to avoid injury.
  • Walk at a pace that allows you to talk easily. If you are too out of breath to speak, you are probably working too hard. Take a rest or stop exercising.
  • In the event of an emergency, call 911.

Background

In 2017, 2019 and 2023, wildflowers carpeted state parks like Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve SNR, Anza-Borrego Desert SP and Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA), attracting hundreds of thousands of people from around the world to view this rare occurrence in nature. These wildflower blooms vary from year to year based on multiple factors: Precipitation levels, the timing of that precipitation, amount of sunlight, humidity levels and seasonal temperature patterns can all affect both the bloom timing and number of flowers seen across the region. Since California was fortunate to receive more rain last fall and this winter, public land managers are expecting a “good” to “better-than-average” wildflower blooms in spring, depending on the continued weather conditions.

CTA-sponsored legislation would remove one of state’s last required tests for teachers

By Leave a Comment

First grade teacher Sandra Morales discusses sentences with a student. Credit: Zaidee Stavely / EdSource

State could retain unpopular written literacy test

By Dana Lambert, EdSource.org – Republished with permission

Newly proposed legislation sponsored by the California Teachers Association would eliminate all performance assessments teachers are required to pass, including one for literacy that it supported three years ago. The result could leave in place an unpopular written test that the literacy performance assessment was designed to replace.

Senate Bill 1263, authored by state Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, would do away with the California Teaching Performance Assessment, known as the CalTPA, through which teachers demonstrate their competence via video clips of instruction and written reflections on their practice.

Eliminating the assessment will increase the number of effective teachers in classrooms, as the state continues to contend with a teacher shortage, said Newman, chairman of the Senate Education Committee.

“One key to improving the educator pipeline is removing barriers that may be dissuading otherwise talented and qualified prospective people from pursuing a career as an educator,” Newman said in a statement to EdSource.

The bill also would do away with a literacy performance assessment of teachers and oversight of literacy instruction in teacher preparation programs mandated by Senate Bill 488, authored by Sen. Susan Rubio, D-West Covina, in 2021.

The literacy performance assessment is scheduled to be piloted in the next few months. It is meant to replace the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) set to be scrapped in 2025.

New law could leave RICA in place

The proposed legislation appears to leave in place a requirement that candidates for a preliminary multiple-subject or education specialist credential pass a reading instruction competence assessment, said David DeGuire, a director at the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

“At this time, it is unclear what that assessment would look like, but it could be that the state continues to use the current version of the RICA,” he said.

Newman will present the legislation to the Senate Education Committee in the next few months. Discussions about whether the RICA remains in use are likely to take place during the legislative process.

Rubio recently became aware of the new legislation and had not yet discussed it with Newman.

“For three years, I worked arduously and collaboratively with a broad range of education leaders, including parent groups, teacher associations and other stakeholders to modernize a key component of our educational system that in my 17 years as a classroom teacher and school administrator I saw as counterproductive to our students’ learning,” Rubio said of Senate Bill 488.

Teachers union changes course 

The California Teachers Association, which originally supported Senate Bill 488, now wants all performance assessments, including the literacy performance assessment, eliminated.

“We are all scratching our heads,” said Yolie Flores, of Families in Schools, a Los Angeles-based education advocacy organization. “We were really blindsided by this (legislation), given the momentum around strengthening our teacher prep programs.”

The results of a survey of almost 1,300 CTA members last year convinced the state teachers union to push for the elimination of the CalTPA, said Leslie Littman, vice president of the union. Teachers who took the survey said the test caused stress, took away time that could have been used to collaborate with mentors and for teaching, and did not prepare them to meet the needs of students, she said.

“I think what we were probably not cognizant of at that time, and it really has become very clear of late, is just how much of a burden these assessments have placed on these teacher candidates,” Littman said.

Teacher candidates would be better served if they were observed over longer periods of time, during student teaching, apprenticeships, residencies and mentorship programs, to determine if they were ready to teach, Littman said. This would also allow a mentor to counsel and support the candidate to ensure they have the required skills.

California joins science of reading movement

California has joined a national effort to change how reading is being taught in schools. States nationwide are rethinking balanced literacy, which has its roots in whole language instruction or teaching children to recognize words by sight, and replacing it with a method that teaches them to decode words by sounding them out, a process known as phonics.

Smarter Balanced test scores, released last fall, show that only 46.6% of the state’s students who were tested met academic standards in English.

Last week Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, introduced Assembly Bill 2222, which would mandate that schools use evidence-based reading instruction. California, a “local control” state, currently only encourages school districts to incorporate fundamental reading skills, including phonics, into instruction.

“It (Newman’s SB 1263) goes against not only the movement, but everything we know from best practices, evidence, research, science, of how we need to equip new teachers and existing teachers, frankly, to teach literacy,” Flores said. “And that we would wipe it away at this very moment where we’re finally getting some traction is just very concerning.”

Lori DePole, co-director of DeCoding Dyslexia California, said the proposed legislation would cut any progress the state has made “off at the knees.”

Among her concerns is the elimination of the requirement, also authorized by Senate Bill 488, that the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing certify that teacher preparation programs are teaching literacy aligned to state standards and a provision that requires the commission to report to the state Legislature annually on how stakeholders are meeting the requirements of the law.

“It would be going away,” DePole said. “Everyone agreed with SB 488, all the supporters agreed, this was the direction California needed to go to strengthen teacher prep with respect to literacy. And before it can even be fully implemented, we’re going to do a 180 with this legislation. It makes no sense.”

Flores said teachers want to be equipped to teach reading using evidence-based techniques, but many don’t know how.

“We know that reading is the gateway, and if kids can’t read, it’s practically game over, right?” said Flores. “And we are saying with this bill that it doesn’t matter, that we don’t really need to teach and show that teachers know how to teach reading.”

Teacher tests replaced by coursework, degrees

California has been moving away from standardized testing for teacher candidates for several years as the teacher shortage worsened. In July 2021, legislation gave teacher candidates the option to take approved coursework instead of the California Basic Education Skills Test, or CBEST, or the California Subject Examinations for Teachers, or CSET. In January’s tentative budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed eliminating the CBEST and allowing the completion of a bachelor’s degree to satisfy the state’s basic skills requirement.

Littman disagrees with the idea that there will be no accountability for teachers if the legislation passes. “There’s always been, and will continue to be, an evaluation component for all of our teachers in this state,” she said. “It just depends on what your district does and how they implement that. There’s always been a system of accountability for folks.”

New California teaching standards increase focus on family engagement, social-emotional learning

By Leave a Comment

Students at Edison High School in Fresno. Photo: EdSource.org. Credit: Fresno Unified / Flickr.

By Diane Lambert, EdSource.org

California’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing approved long-awaited revised Standards for the Teaching Profession on Thursday that emphasize culturally responsive teaching, social-emotional learning and family engagement.

The standards, which guide teachers’ professional development and evaluation statewide, broadly describe the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of effective experienced teachers. State law requires that they are updated regularly.

During the meeting (Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024), the overwhelming sentiment — from commissioners members, speakers from the public, and the letters received — supported the new standards; however, some asked the commission to push back the 2025-26 rollout of the new standards to allow university teacher preparation programs, school districts and commission staff more time to implement changes.

“The revised CSTP aims to rehumanize our system by focusing on the whole student, their identities and what’s meaningful in this world to them, not us,” said Leigh Dela Victoria, an instructional coach in the Fontana Unified School District in San Bernardino County.

“They have the potential to transform all of our classrooms into culturally and linguistically responsive and sustaining communities,” she said. “As a coach, I can tell you firsthand the impact this type of teaching has on students when their identities, assets and agency are valued.”

She told commission members that the current standards, approved in 2009, are out of touch with what needs to be taught in classrooms.

The six overarching domains of teaching in the new document are similar to the previous standards, and are parallel to other state standards, according to the commission. The elements within the domains include definitions and examples. The six domains are also used in the Teaching Performance Expectations, which outline what beginning teachers should know.

“The revised CSTP features several key shifts from the 2009 version, chief among them a more holistic approach to teaching and learning,” said Sarah Lillis, executive director for Teach Plus California, in a letter. “For example, the move from goal setting to designing learning experiences shifts the focus from results to students’ learning. Another notable shift is recognizing that all teachers, regardless of subject-specific credential areas, are teachers of literacy skills.”

Family engagement is a key element of new standards

The new standards also focus on family and community engagement, requiring teachers to find effective strategies for communicating and creating relationships with families.

“These standards provide an invaluable road map that will undoubtedly strengthen how teachers, schools and communities partner with families,” said Bryan Becker, of the Parent Organization Network.

Also new to the standards are two sections, one asking teachers to examine their personal attitudes and biases, and how these impact student learning, and the other asking them to reflect on their personal code of ethics.

After speakers expressed concern about the few references to English learners and students with disabilities in the document, Chair Marquita Grenot-Scheyer made a motion to approve the standards with amendments that would “shine a brighter spotlight” on those students.

She also asked that the amendment include direction to ensure teachers attend individualized education plan meetings. School staff and parents attend these meetings to review the education plan of students with special needs.

Revision put on hold for two years

According to the commission, the revision was a long time in coming. Originally adopted in the 1990s, the standards were most recently updated in 2009. An expert group of educators, administrators, researchers and state education staff came together in 2020 to update the standards. The group met online five times between June 2020 and May 2021, but work was paused a few months later “as Covid and other critical world events demanded pause and reflection.”

Over the past two years, the commission has been focused on other state initiatives that would impact the new standards, including the new PK-3 Early Childhood Specialist Instruction Credential and the implementation of revised literacy standards and literacy-related teaching performance expectations mandated by legislation. Members of the expert group returned in 2023 to review and finalize the document.

Board denies pleas for delay

The commission voted for the newly revised standards to go into effect in the 2025-26 school year, despite numerous requests by speakers to extend the rollout to give teacher preparation and induction programs and the commission staff more time to prepare for them.

Grenot-Scheyer also directed commission staff to develop an implementation plan that will support school districts and teacher preparation programs during the transition.

Audry Wiens, induction coordinator for Fontana Unified, was among those who asked the commission to delay the implementation of the standards for a year. She said programs would need to come to a common understanding of the shifts that need to take place, revise relevant documents, train mentors in induction programs and update accreditation websites.

Some wanted the standards implemented as soon as possible.

“I am not an induction program provider, but it really causes me pause to extend any sort of timelines, because we have got things to do here,” said Commissioner Megan Gross. “… I want us to capitalize on this sense of urgency that we have to do better for our kids.”

GOING DEEPER

Domain 1: Engaging and supporting all students in learning – Teachers apply knowledge about each student to activate an approach to learning that strengthens and reinforces each student’s participation, engagement, connection and sense of belonging.

Domain 2: Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning – Teachers create and uphold a safe, caring and intellectually stimulating learning environment that affirms student agency, voice, identity and development, and promotes equity and inclusivity.

Domain 3: Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning –  Teachers integrate content, processes, materials and resources into a coherent, culturally relevant and equitable curriculum that engages and challenges learners to develop the academic and social–emotional knowledge and skills required to become competent and resourceful learners.

Domain 4: Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students – Teachers set a purposeful direction for instruction and learning activities, intentionally planning and enacting challenging and relevant learning experiences that foster each student’s academic and social–emotional development.

Domain 5: Assessing students for learning – Teachers employ equitable assessment practices to help identify students’ interests and abilities, to reveal what students know and can do and to determine what they need to learn. Teachers use that information to advance and monitor student progress as well as to guide teachers’ and students’ actions to improve learning experiences and outcomes.

Domain 6: Developing as a professional educator – Teachers develop as effective and caring professional educators by engaging in relevant and high-quality professional learning experiences that increase their teaching capacity, leadership development and personal well-being. Doing so enables teachers to support each student to learn and thrive.

 

State Division of Boating and Waterways set to control aquatic invasive plants in Delta

By Leave a Comment

Photos from Division of Boating and Waterways.

SACRAMENTO, Calif.— California State Parks’ Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) today announced plans to control aquatic invasive plants in the west coast’s largest estuary, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its southern tributaries. Starting March 6 through Nov. 30, 2024, DBW crews will begin herbicide treatments on water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, Alligator weed, Brazilian waterweed, curly leaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort in the Delta. Depending on weather conditions and plant growth/movement, treatment dates may change. Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth will be controlled using mechanical harvesting efforts through December 2024.

DBW works with local, state, and federal entities to better understand the plants and implement new integrated control strategies to increase efficacy. These aquatic invasive plants have no known natural controls and negatively affect the Delta’s ecosystem as they displace native plants. Continued warm temperatures help the plants proliferate at high rates. Plants are also known to form dense mats of vegetation creating safety hazards for boaters, obstructing navigation channels, marinas, and irrigation systems. Due to their ability to rapidly spread to new areas, it is likely that the plants will never be eradicated from Delta waters. Therefore, DBW operates a “control” program as opposed to an “eradication” program.

“Thank you to the public and partners for working with us on combating these aquatic invasive plants,” said DBW’s Deputy Director Ramona Fernandez. “Together we are mitigating their impacts on the lives of all who live, work, and recreate in the Delta.”

All herbicides used in DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program are registered for aquatic use with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Treated areas will be monitored to ensure herbicide levels do not exceed allowable limits and follow EPA-registered label guidelines. The public may view the public notices and sign up to receive weekly updates on this year’s treatment season on DBW’s website.

Below is a list of proposed control actions for the 2024 treatment season:

Floating Aquatic Vegetation (Public Notice)

Water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, and alligator weed.

Herbicide Control

  • Proposed Treatment Period
     All Sites: March 6, 2024 – Nov. 30, 2024
  • Type of Herbicides: Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Imazamox, or Diquat
  • Potential Treatment Areas: Initially in and/or around, but not limited to the following areas: San Joaquin River, Old River, Middle River, Fourteen Mile Slough, and Snodgrass Slough.

Mechanical Harvesting (If necessary)

  • Harvesting Dates: March 2024 – April 2024 and July 2024 – December 2024
  • Mechanical Harvesting Sites: Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth. See the Public Notice for potential mechanical harvesting control areas.

Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (Public Notice)

Brazilian waterweed, curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort.

Herbicide Control

  • Treatment Period: Starting March 6, 2024, through Nov. 30, 2024, treatment period is based upon DBW field survey data, water temperatures and fish surveys.
  • Type of Herbicide: Fluridone, Endothall or Diquat.
  • Potential Treatment Areas: In and/or around the following areas (individual areas will be noticed prior to treatment application):

Anchorages, boat ramps and marinas: B & W Resort, Delta Marina Yacht Harbor, Grindstone Joes, Hidden Harbor Resort, Korth’s Pirates Lair, Oxbow Marina, Owl Harbor, River Point Landing, Rivers End, St. Francis Yacht Club, Tiki Lagoon, Tracy Oasis Marina, Turner Cut Resort, Vieira’s Resort, Village West Marina, and Willow Berm.
Near Old River: Berkeley Ski Club, Bullfrog Ski Club, Cruiser Haven, Delta Coves, Diablo Ski Club, Discovery Bay, Golden Gate Ski Club, Hammer Island, Italian Slough, Kings Island, Orwood Marina, Piper Slough, Sandmound Slough, Stockton Ski Club, and Taylor Slough.

Sacramento Area: French Island, Hogback, Long Island Slough, Prospect Island, Sacramento Marina, Snug Harbor, and Washington Lake.

Stockton Area: Atherton Cove, Buckley Cove, Calaveras River, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough, and Windmill Cove.

Mechanical Harvesting

This type of control method is not used for submersed aquatic vegetation. These plants are spread by fragmentation. Cutting the plants back exacerbates the problem, as shreds of the plants float away and re-propagate.

To report sightings, subscribe for program updates or more information regarding the control program, connect with us online at our website, via email at  AIS@parks.ca.gov, or by phone at (888) 326-2822.

Last year, DBW treated 2,377 acres of floating aquatic vegetation and 1,405 acres of submersed aquatic vegetation. No mechanical harvesting was conducted. A combination of herbicide, biological, and mechanical control methods were used to help control invasive plants at high-priority sites in the Delta.

In 1982, California state legislation designated DBW as the lead state agency to cooperate with other state, local, and federal agencies in controlling water hyacinth in the Delta, its tributaries, and the SuisunMarsh. The Egeria Densa Control Program was authorized by law in 1997 and treatment began in 2001. In 2012, spongeplant was authorized for control upon completion of the biological assessment. In 2013, DBW was able to expand its jurisdiction to include other invasive aquatic plants, and since then other aquatic invasive plants such as Uruguay water primrose, Eurasian watermilfoil, Carolina fanwort, coontail, Alligator weed, and Ribbon weed have been added to the AIPCP program.

Revenues from boaters’ registration fees and gasoline taxes (Harbors and Watercraft RevolvingFund), provide funding for DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program.

 

CA Legislative Analyst’s Office increases state deficit by $15 billion to $73 billion

By Leave a Comment

The 2024‑25 Budget

Deficit Update

Under LAO Revenue Update, Budget Problem Grows by $15 Billion

February 20, 2024

From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, The California Legislature’s Non-Partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor

The state already faces a significant deficit this year—we estimate it totaled $58 billion under the administration’s revenue forecast at the time the Governor’s budget was proposed in January. However, recent revenue collections data reflect even further weakness relative to those estimates. Specifically, our forecast is about $24 billion below the Governor’s budget across 2022‑23 to 2024‑25. All else equal, this means the budget problem is likely to be higher at the time of the May Revision. The actual increase in the state’s budget problem will depend on a number of factors, including formula-driven spending changes, most notably Proposition 98 spending requirements for schools and community colleges. (Due to specific circumstances this year, changes in revenues are unlikely to have a significant effect on the state’s other major formula-driven spending requirements, specifically related to Proposition 2.) Roughly, a $24 billion erosion in revenues corresponds to a $15 billion increase in the budget problem. This would expand the $58 billion estimated deficit to $73 billion under our updated revenue forecast.

Options to Address $15 Billion in Additional Budget Problem

If the budget problem increases by $15 billion, the Legislature will need to find a like amount of new budget solutions to ensure the budget is balanced for 2024‑25. Budget solutions include, for example: revenue increases and spending reductions (on both a one-time and ongoing basis), as well as other tools, like reserves and cost shifts. As the Legislature considers how to address this increased budget problem, we have put together a set of tables identifying one-time and temporary spending that could be pulled back or reduced in order to achieve budgetary savings. Below, we explain why we set forth these amounts as a possible first option to addressing a larger budget problem and then walk through our method for estimating the amounts potentially available in more detail.

Why Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending?

The Legislature will weigh the implications of each possible solution—including increasing revenues and spending reductions—against others and, ultimately, choose a mix of solutions based on its priorities. We recommend the Legislature start by reviewing whether recent augmentations for one-time and temporary spending could be pulled back or reduced. We recommend this approach for two key reasons. First, when this one-time and temporary spending was adopted, it was understood that doing so would provide a cushion for future budget problems. For example, the administration frequently displayed “operating surpluses” in its multiyear forecasts excluding this type of spending—implying that the administration understood that the state could not afford all of the commitments under its own projections, but the state could afford the ongoing budget.

Second, the more the Legislature reduces one-time and temporary spending this year, the more other tools it can preserve for future budget problems. Reducing one-time and temporary spending is a “use or lose” tool for addressing the budget problem—once the funds are disbursed to recipients, pulling them back becomes practically impossible. Other tools, like reserve withdrawals and cost shifts, also can be used only once, but at any time. Saving them to deploy in the future can help the Legislature avoid cuts to ongoing services—which involve very difficult decisions. For example, in the Great Recession, the programs with some of the largest expenditure reductions were in health and human services, including to Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to low-income individuals and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which provides income assistance to low-income individuals. Although the federal government has certain requirements for minimum state participation in these programs, California provides services well above these minimums. As a result, reductions tend to be concentrated in these areas because they are the ones where the state has the most flexibility to reduce spending without raising issues related to requirements imposed by courts, the voters, and the federal government. As such, maintaining other tools like reserves and cost shifts now could help mitigate reductions in these areas in the future.

Options Possibly Available to Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending

State Allocated Large Shares of Surpluses to Temporary Purposes, Although Some Has Been Disbursed or Already Proposed for Reduction. Recent budgets allocated tens of billions of dollars in surpluses to one-time and temporary spending, including in 2023‑24, 2024‑25, and 2025‑26. Some spending, most notably for 2023‑24, has already been disbursed or encumbered. This means, for example, that grants have been awarded, funds have been transferred to other entities of government, and contracts or leases have been signed. (In some cases, funds have also been committed for 2024‑25 and 2025‑26, for example, through grant awards.) In addition, the Governor has already proposed pulling back much—but not all—of the undisbursed spending associated with these augmentations.

State Has Nearly $16 Billion in Recent One-Time and Temporary Spending That Could Possibly Still Be Pulled Back or Reduced. After setting aside disbursements and Governor’s budget proposals, we estimate the state possibly could pull back and reduce one-time and temporary augmentations by as much as $6.4 billion in 2023‑24, $4.1 billion in 2024‑25, and $5.1 billion in 2025‑26. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these amounts by program area, while the Appendix includes a complete list of them. These figures represent our current estimates of the amounts for which the Legislature has broad authority to make reductions, which could help the state address a larger budget problem in May. (In some cases, however, further disbursements could occur between now and May, such smaller amounts would be available for reduction at that time.)

Figure 1

Summary of Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending

(In Millions)

2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
Business and Labor $266 $284 $198
Criminal Justice 130 40 —
Education 602 1,195 1,109
Health and Human Services 867 301 701
Housing and Homelessness 1,599 — 260
Other 1,752 557 432
Resources and Environment 1,049 1,005 1,377
Transportation 146 739 1,000
Totals $6,411 $4,121 $5,076
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.

This Information Reflects Our Best Current Understanding. While these estimates reflect the best information we have available, in many cases we do not have perfect information from the administration about the current status of funds. As such, we would view this list as a starting place for the Legislature as it begins crafting the final budget package. For any specific reductions, particularly in 2023‑24, the Legislature could ask the administration for detailed and up-to-date information on disbursements and encumbrances.

More Could Be Pulled Back From Earlier Years. For the purposes of this analysis, we only reviewed disbursements and encumbrances authorized for 2023‑24 and later. There is, however, additional spending attributable to 2022‑23 and earlier that has not yet been disbursed. The Legislature could ask the administration to provide information about the amount of unspent funds from these earlier years.

Appendix Tables

Appendix Figure 1

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Business and Labor

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
EDD New IT overhaul—EDDNext $99 — —
GO Biz California Competes Grants 10 — —
HCAI Health and home care workforce package 85 $259 $198
HCAI Behavioral health workforce capacity 52 — —
HCAI Various other health care workforce initiatives 20 25 —
Totals $266 $284 $198
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
EDD = Employment Development Department; IT = information technology; GO Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Appendix Figure 2

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Criminal Justice

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
BSCC Adult Reentry Grant $20 — —
CDCR Expansion of community reentry centers 40 $40 —
CDCR Various capital projects at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center 20 — —
OES Nonprofit Security Grant Program 40 — —
OES Family Justice Centers 10 — —
Totals $130 $40 —
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections; CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and OES = Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

Appendix Figure 3

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Education

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CSAC Golden State Teacher Grants $91 $128 $1
CSU CSU Dominguez Hills Dymally Institute facility 15 — —
DGS State share for school construction projects 472 994 485
DGS Construction and renovation of transitional kindergarten, State Preschool, and full‑day kindergarten facilities — — 550
OPR California College Corps Program — 73 73
UC Cancer Research Relating to Firefighters 7 — —
UC UC Berkeley School of Journalism Police Records Access Project 7 — —
UC UC Los Angeles Ralph J. Bunche Center 5 — —
UC UC Davis Equine Performance and Rehabilitation Center 5 — —
Totals $602 $1,195 1,109
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
CSAC = Student Aid Commission; DGS = Department of General Services; and OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Appendix Figure 4

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Health and Human Services

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CalHHS Health innovation accelerator initiative — — $43
CDPH Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years $268 — —
CDPH COVID‑19 response 25 — —
CDPH Public health IT systems 9 — —
CDPH Public education and change campaign — $40 5
Aging Modernizing the Older Californians Act — 37 37
DHCS Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program — — 235
DHCS Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program — 100 381
DHCS Evidence‑based and community‑defined behavioral health programs — 109 —
DSS CalFresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot — 15 —
HCAI Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years 565 — —
Totals $867 $301 $701
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
CalHHS = Health and Human Services Agency; CDPH = California Department of Public Health; Aging = Department of Aging; DHCS = Department of Health Care Services; DSS = Department of Social Services; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Appendix Figure 5

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Housing and Homelessness

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
BCH Agencya Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP) $1,100 — $260
BCH Agency Encampment Resolution Grants 299 — —
HCD Portfolio Reinvestment Program 100 — —
HCD Multifamily Housing Program 75 — —
HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant Program 25 — —
Totals $1,599 — $260
aBy the time the HHAPP costs are incurred, the program will have transferred to from BCSH Agency to HCD.
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
BCH Agency Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and HCD = Department of Housing and Community Development.

Appendix Figure 6

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Other

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CDT Broadband infrastructure—increased middle‑mile network costs $420 $250 —
CPUC Broadband infrastructure—last‑mile projects 900 100 $200
CPUC Broadband infrastructure—Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund 175 150 175
GO‑Biz Fresno Infrastructure Plan 50 — —
OPR Establish new office of public outreach 60 57 57
SCO California State Payroll System 147 — —
Totals $1,752 $557 $432
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages
CDT = California Department of Technology; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; GO‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; and SCO = State Controller’s Office.

Appendix Figure 7

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Resources and Environment

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CalEPA Environmental Justice Initiative (Community Resilience Package) $5 — —
CalFire Post‑fire reforestation and regeneration (Wildfire Resilience Package) 50 — —
CalFire Emergency surge (helitanker contract component) 45 $45 —
CalFire Forest Improvement Program (Wildfire Resilience Package) 13 — —
CalFire Tribal engagement (Wildfire Resilience Package) 10 — —
CARB FARMER program 75 — —
CARB Clean Cars 4 All (ZEV Package) 50 — —
CARB AB 617 (Community Resilience Package) 50 — —
CARB Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) 20 — —
CEC Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan (SB 846) 100 400 $500
CEC Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (Energy Package) 100 25 25
CEC Demand Side Grid Support (Energy Package) 95 — —
CEC Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) — 53 92
CNRA Water resilience projects (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 171 — —
CNRA Tribal nature‑based solutions program (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) 30 — —
CPUC Residential Solar and Storage (Energy Package) — 50 100
DTSC Brownfield cleanups — 85 15
DWR Flood and dam safety (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 53 — —
DWR Oroville Pump Storage (Energy Package) 4 10 20
DWR American River flood project — 27 —
DWR Urban flood risk reduction — 35 —
DWR Strategic Reliability Assets (Energy Package) — 75 75
DWR Water conveyance, water storage (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) — — 500
Go‑Biz or CNRA Diablo Canyon land use planning — — 50
IBank Transmission Financing (Energy Package) 25 — —
OPC Ocean protection (Coastal Resilience Package) 13 — —
OPC Coastal resilience SB 1 implementation (Coastal Resilience Package) 1 — —
OPR Community‑Based Public Awareness Campaign (Extreme Heat Package) 14 — —
SWRCB Water recycling, groundwater cleanup (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 17 — —
SWRCB Drinking water and wastewater projects (Drought‑Water Resilience) — 200 —
Various Misc Nature‑Based Solutions Package 9 — —
Various Misc Wildfire Resilience Package 5 — —
WCB Protect fish and wildlife from changing conditions (Nature‑Based Solutions) 49 — —
WCB Various WCB programs (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) 46 — —
Totals $1,049 $1,005 $1,377
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages
CalEPA = California Environmental Protection Agency; CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; DTSC = Department of Toxics and Substances Control; DWR = Department of Water Resources; Go‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; IBank =California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; OPC = Ocean Protection Council; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board; and WCB = Wildlife Conservation Board.

Appendix Figure 8

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Transportation

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
Caltrans Clean California $146 — —
CalSTA Transit and rail funding (Transportation Infrastructure) — $739 $1,000
Totals $146 $739 $1,000
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation and CalSTA = California State Transportation Agency.

 

APPS felony arrest in Richmond seizure of hundreds of illegal weapons, approximately one million rounds of ammunition

By Leave a Comment

Guns seized in Richmond arrest. Photos: CA DOJ

Including machine guns, assault rifles, silencers, suspected grenades

By Office of California Attorney General

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced today, Thursday, February 15, 2024, the arrest of a suspect in Richmond with a large cache of illegal firearms, including assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and approximately one million rounds of ammunition. The suspect is alleged to be legally barred from owning weapons.

“This arrest demonstrates exactly why the Armed and Prohibited Persons System is vital for the safety of our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In our efforts to retrieve guns from a prohibited individual, we found hundreds of allegedly illegal weapons and approximately one million rounds of ammunition. I am grateful for our Bureau of Firearms agents’ and local law enforcement partners’ work in getting these illegal weapons out of the hands of this prohibited individual.”

On January 31, 2024, agents from the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Firearms (BOF) Contra Costa Anti-Violence Support Effort (CASE) Task Force assisted by the BOF Dublin office and Contra Costa County Probation Officers served a search warrant at the suspect’s residence in Richmond. During the search, several suspected grenades were discovered, and the Walnut Creek Police Department Bomb Squad and Travis Air Force Base Bomb Squad were asked to respond, and the grenades were found to be inert. After a thorough search of the residence, DOJ agents seized approximately 11 military-style machine guns, 133 handguns, 37 rifles, 60 assault rifles, 7 shotguns, 20 silencers, 4 flare guns, 3,000 large capacity magazines, approximately one million rounds of miscellaneous caliber ammunition, and dozens of rifle receivers and pistol frames. (See video.)

In 2006, California became the first state in the nation to establish a system for tracking firearm owners who fall into a prohibited status. The APPS database works to identify individuals who lawfully procured firearms and later became prohibited from owning or possessing them. In general, prohibited persons in APPS include individuals who were convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, were placed under a domestic violence or other restraining order, or suffer from serious mental illness.

The 2022 APPS Report was released in April of 2023 and the 2023 APPS Report will be released in March 2024. DOJ’s BOF serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sale, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms and ammunition. BOF staff are leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators, and the general public in a comprehensive program to ensure legitimate and responsible firearm possession and use by California residents. BOF is looking to hire additional special agents and more information on assessments for relevant job openings can be found on DOJ’s website at oag.ca.gov/careers/exams.

 

Valentine’s Day marchers call on UC Regents, Chancellors to “Break Up with Blackstone”

By Leave a Comment

Marches at two of seven UC campuses on Valentine’s Day. Source: AFSCME 3299 Facebook page

Hundreds of students, workers, tenants participate at 7 UC campuses; claim UC is major shareholder in $3.5B controversial private equity investment trust that’s been linked to state’s housing affordability Crisis

On Valentine’s Day, Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2024, students, the University of California’s (UC) union of low-wage frontline service and patient care workers – members of AFSCME Local 3299 – alongside Blackstone tenants and community members with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) called on UC Chancellors to “Break up with Blackstone” and invest in affordable housing. The global Wall Street private equity firm Blackstone has become the largest landlord in America and has been accused of worsening high housing costs and evictions.

Actions were held across the state in seven locations on the campuses of UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara and UC San Diego. The renewed call to divest from Blackstone follows the announcement of its $3.5 billion acquisition of Tricon Residential Inc. UC invested $4.5 billion in Blackstone’s BREIT in 2023 to boost investor confidence amid a wave of shareholder redemptions.

Blackstone went on an aggressive buying spree in 2021 and 2022, expanding its residential real estate empire, and adding over 200,000 housing units to its portfolio, including 5,600 naturally occurring affordable housing units in the San Diego area. ACCE released a report earlier this year with the Private Equity Stakeholder Project showing that Blackstone had raised rents in some units in San Diego between 43% – 64% in two years. Even before its announced acquisition of Tricon Residential, Blackstone owned more than 300,000 housing units, including a majority stake in the nation’s largest provider of student housing. As California becomes increasingly unaffordable, throwing more families into homelessness, Blackstone’s aggressiveness as one of the largest landlords in the state in hiking up rents for its thousands of units only adds to the problem.

UC acknowledged last year that its staff vacancy rate had tripled under the weight of California’s housing affordability crisis since the start of the COVID Pandemic, but has thus far failed to act on calls from students and workers to divest from Blackstone and invest in more affordable housing.  The University currently houses just 38% of its students in places that cost 30% more, on average than comparable campus communities nationwide. Recent news reports have chronicled the struggles of UC’s low-wage service and patient care workers being forced to commute several hours or sleep in their cars to maintain their employment.

AFSCME Local 3299 represents more than 33,000 Service and Patient Care Technical workers at UC’s 10 campuses, 5 medical centers, numerous clinics, research laboratories, and UC Law, SF.

The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action is a grassroots, member-led, statewide community organization working with more than 16,000 members across California. ACCE is dedicated to raising the voices of everyday Californians, neighborhood by neighborhood, to fight for the policies and programs we need to improve our communities and create a brighter future.

Contra Costa Health awarded state grant for Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program

By Leave a Comment

Graphic source: OTS

$202.7K from Office of Traffic Safety

Contra Costa Health (CCH) announced today that it has received a $202,692 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to support its Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. This grant will allow CCH to promote safe practices for pedestrians and bicyclists and provide education about the importance of sharing the road.

Local data show an increase of nearly 30% in fatal crashes involving pedestrians over the past 10 years in Contra Costa County, and that pedestrians and bicyclists are 2.4 times more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a traffic crash compared to drivers. The OTS grant funds multiple efforts to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

“Everyone deserves a safe environment to travel, regardless of how people get to places,” OTS Director Barbara Rooney said. “The safety of people walking and biking on our roads is a high priority. Education plays a pivotal role in creating a strong road safety culture that prioritizes traffic safety, especially for our most vulnerable road users.”

Grant funds will support a variety of activities focused on bicycle and pedestrian safety:

  • Support for local jurisdictions to include public health in road safety plans and address the community conditions that create unsafe environments for non-motorized road users.
  • Local bicycle and pedestrian safety campaigns.
  • Community bicycle and walk “audits” of streets with high rates of pedestrian or bicyclist fatalities and serious injury crashes.
  • Bicycle training courses that teach youth on how to stay safe on the road.
  • Community events that promote bicyclist and pedestrian visibility and the importance of sharing the road, slowing down, and staying alert to bicyclists and pedestrians while driving.

Area Goals for the OTS program include:

  • Reduce the total number of pedestrians killed.
  • Reduce the total number of pedestrians injured.
  • Reduce the number of pedestrians killed under the age of 15.
  • Reduce the number of pedestrians injured under the age of 15.
  • Reduce the number of pedestrians killed over the age of 65.
  • Reduce the number of pedestrians injured over the age of 65.
  • Reduce the total number of bicyclists killed in traffic related crashes.
  • Reduce the total number of bicyclists injured in traffic related crashes.
  • Reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic related crashes under the age of 15.
  • Reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic related crashes under the age of 15.
  • Increase bicycle helmet compliance for children aged 5 to 18.

The grant program will run through September 2024.

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.