working council draft agenda - svlgsvlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/packet-3.29.16.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Reminder: Per our by-laws Leadership Group meetings are confidential Working Council Thursday, April 7 2016 Brocade 130 Holger Way, Bldg. 120, Room IMC 2, San Jose, CA 95134
DRAFT AGENDA 7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation 8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder Special Thank you to our Chair and Host, Jeff Rangel
Welcome to new Member Company Representatives
Welcome and introduction of new Leadership Group team members President's Report
Working Council Meeting Location – July 7th
DC Advocacy Trip, March 21-23 – Debrief
Workplace Wellness Workshop, April 14th @ Brocade, San Jose
CEO Business Climate Summit, April 15th @ Microsoft, Mountain View
Young Women’s Leadership Summit, April 20th @ Levi’s Stadium, Santa Clara
2016 Housing Tour - May 14th
Sacramento Advocacy Trip – May 25th Consent Item
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: March 3, 2016 Working Council Meeting
AB 2507 (Gordon) Telehealth- Staff recommends Support pending Health Committee approval
San Jose Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone - Health Committee recommends Support
AB 1736 (Steinorth) - Homeownership savings accounts –Housing and Land Use Committee recommends Support
HOV Sticker Expansion/Extension, Transportation Committee recommends Support
San Benito County June Transportation Measure, Transportation Committee recommends Support
AB 2502 (Mullin/Chiu) , Protecting Local Inclusionary Housing Programs, Housing and Land Use Committee recommends Support (SVLG has historically supported same bill)
Discussion Policy Action Items w/Guest Speakers:
Transportation Measure: Polling Results- Transportation Committee reports survey, Carl Guardino (via conference call-in)
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: Mass Transit for Seniors, Disabled, Low-Income and Students - Transportation Committee recommends Support, John Ristow VTA
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: West Valley Corridor Mass Transit – Transportation Committee recommends Support, John Ristow VTA
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: Bicycle/Pedestrian projects- Transportation Committee recommends Support, Lauren Ledbetter, VTA
Transportation Measure Overall Expenditure Plan - Transportation Committee recommends Support, Chris O’Connor
*ADDITIONAL ACTION ITEMS ON NEXT PAGE*
Discussion / Legislative Action Items
California Drug Price Relief Act- Health Committee Recommends Oppose
SB 66 (Leyva and McGuire) Data Collection and Reporting for Career Technical Education Programs - Education and Workforce Development Committee recommends Support
SB 286 (Hertzberg)- Direct Access – Energy Committee recommends Support
AB 2454 (Williams) - Demand Response – Energy Committee recommends Support
Fast Track Legislative Policy – Operations Committee recommends Approval (place holder)
Informational Reports
AB 2395 (Low) -- Telecom Carbon Reduction and Modernization Act (informational update)
Measure AA Education (information update) 2016 Home Run Goal Updates (1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area from committee co-chair or member) – included in the briefing packet as a written report Energy Transportation Tax Policy Education Government Relations Health Environment Housing & Land Use Community Technology Policy 10:15 a.m. Adjournment Next Meeting: May 5, 2016 @ Brocade, San Jose, CA
2016 Working Council Meeting Schedule
January 7
February 4
March 3
April 7
May 5
June 2
July 7
August 4
Sept. 1
Oct. 6
Nov. 16 (Strategy Conference)
Dec. 1
Working Council
Thursday, March 3, 2016
7:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
Lam Research, Conference Room, 3960 N. 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95134
Members Present:
Jeff Rangel, Brocade, Chair
Jason Lundgaard, Apple, Vice-Chair
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Dana Rivera, Accela
Jim Lightbody, AECOM
Monica Gomez, Applied Materials
Angela Kung, AT&T
Sara Broadbent, Avaya
Josh Russell, Bank of America
Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences
Brian Hubinger, Chevron
Mike Potter, Cisco
Lennies Gutierrez, Comcast
Mona Tierney-Lloyd, EnerNoc, Inc.
Michael Prishylak, Direct Resource Management
Anissa Leong, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Kristina Vasquez, IBM
Steve Joesten, Infinera
Mary Dent, Insikt, Inc.
Tom Harrington, Intuit
Jennifer Chamberlin, Johnson Controls
Nancy Noe, Johnson and Johnson
John Lucas, Juniper Networks
Hanh Nguyen, Kaiser Permanente
Breanna Gilbert, KQED
Kyra Whitten, Lam Research
Mike Alba, LinkedIn
Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford
Ashley Howell, Lockheed Martin
Rose Grymes, NASA-Ames Research Center
Paula Kutansky-Brown, NextEV
Anthony Lin, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Jo Harvey, Palo Alto University
Elizabeth Shaughnessy, Palo Alto University
Jennifer Adams, Plantronics
Ron Gonzales, Presencia, LLC
Ginger Neal, San Francisco Chronicle
Brandon Soule, Sanmina Corporation
Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank
Lorenzo Giamartino, SmileyGo
Diana Bautista, Stanford Children’s Health
Blair Swezey, SunPower Corporation
Debra LaTourette, SYNNEX Corporation
Kerstin Aiello, Synopsys
Erin Brennock, Synopsys
Janikke Klem, Tech CU
Ann Cinager, Trimble
Michelle Moskowitz, University of California, Berkley
Donna Blitzer, University of California, Santa Cruz
Jessica Rizzo, University of Notre Dame
Tim Pascoe, Western Digital
Staff Present:
Casey Beyer Peter Leroe-Munoz Juan Quinones
Bena Chang Tim McRae Don Tan
Angelica Cortez Chris O’Connor Connie Vieux
Paul Escobar David Palter Megan White
Margaret Gray Kristina Peralta
AGENDA
Chair Jeff Rangel called the meeting to order at 8:00am and reminded the group
participants of meeting discussion confidentiality so that people could speak candidly.
Self-introductions followed.
Consent Item
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: February 7, 2016 Working Council Meeting
Cortopassi Statewide Initiative – Environment, Housing & Land Use and
Transportation Committees recommends Oppose
Santa Clara County Parks Charter Fund Renewal (pending action from Housing &
Land Use Committee –Housing and Land Use Committee recommends Support
Conway-Collis initiative - a split-roll tax measure – Tax Committee recommends
Oppose
A motion was made by Jannikke Klem of TechCU, was seconded and passed by voice
votes.
President's Report
Student Letter to the First Lady of the United States
Carl discussed the Letter Writing process and an example letter was shown. We are hoping
that the First Lady or someone from her office will come and support. Contact Paul
Escobar about interest at [email protected]
DC Advocacy Trip, March 21-23
Transportation funding and Trans Pacific Partnership will be key topics on the trip.
Contact Rafael De LA Rosa at [email protected].
CEO Business Climate Summit, April 15th from 8-12am at Microsoft, Silicon Valley Campus
1065 La Avenida, Mountain View, CA.
Young Women’s Leadership Summit, April 20th @ Levi’s Stadium from 8:30-1:00pm. Contact
Kristina Peralta at [email protected]
Sacramento Advocacy Trip – May 25th. For more info contact Rafael De La Rosa at
Guest Speakers:
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: Highway Interchanges – John Ristow, VTA,
Transportation Committee Recommends Support
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: Pavement Maintenance – Carl/Bena, Transportation
Committee Recommends Support
Transportation Measure Deep Dive: BART Phase II - Carolyn Gonot, BART, Transportation
Committee Recommends Support
The Transportation committee recommends support of the financial plan for three parts:
Highway Interchanges to approve $750 million for key highway interchange projects, BART
Phase 2 approve $1.4 billion with a cap of $1.5 billion for BART Phase 2 and Pothole Repair
approve $1.2 billion to be distributed to cities and the county by formula. Any jurisdiction
with a 70 PCI or over can use the funds on other local transportation needs. Working
Council approved by hand vote, 45 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention.
2016 Ballot Measure: Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act – Jo Coffaro, Hospital
Council of Northern and Central California, Health Care Committee Recommends Support
Discussion / Legislative Action Items –
Managed Care Organization Tax Package – Information Update
The Leadership Group’s Health, Tax, and Operations committees voted to approve a staff
recommendation to support a revamped Managed Care Organization (MCO) financing
package. This preserves more than $1.1 billion in funding for the state’s Medi-Cal program
and devotes new funding for hospital-based skilled nursing facilities as well as services for
the developmentally disabled. The State Assembly and Senate passed the new financing
package on Monday, 2/29. The Governor signed the MCO Tax package on 3/1.
The Health Committee recommended the support of this act and the Working Council
passed by voice vote with 1 abstention.
San Jose Gross Receipts Tax Alternative – Support – Leland Wilcox, City of San Jose,
Deputy Mayor, Budget Director
Carl presented on the GRT and the possible alternative tax measure, a modernization of
the SJ business tax code. After discussion, Working Council voted recommendation to
support the modernization of the SJ business tax code as an alternative to the GRT. This
recommendation would then be presented to the Tax Policy Committee for their
consideration. A motion was made by Mike Potter of the alternative plan to the gross
receipts ballot measure. This was seconded by Mayor Gonzales to tax committee. The
Gross Receipts Tax Alternative was passed by hand vote: 46 yes, 0 oppose, 5 abstentions.
S 2012 (Murkowski) – Energy Policy Modernization Act – Energy Committee recommends
Support in Concept
The Leadership Group voted to Support in Concept the bill to support the energy
efficiency and grid modernization aspects of the bill while recognizing there were several
items in it that concern us. Those areas included:
- Furnace efficiency standards
- Expediting permitting for Mining, LNG exports and methane hydrates
- Carbon Capture and Storage funding
- Repeal of current law that phases out fossil fuel use in new federal buildings by
2030.
The Leadership Group communicated that if the bill moves forward in Congress we will
examine those issues further in depth. A vote to support in concept by hand vote: 20 yes, 0
no, 18 abstentions.
SB 438 (Hill) and AB 1346 (Gray ) – Early Warning Earthquake Alert System - Operations
Committee recommends Support
Chair Rangel called on SVLG staff Casey Beyer to lead the discussion on the Early Warning
Earthquake Alert system S- 438. Casey noted that Senator Jerry Hill approached the
Leadership Group to support this concept two years ago. SVLG held a round table
meeting in late 2014 where member company support was very good. However over the
past 18 months no public/private funding strategy was possible. Sen. Hill introduced
legislation last month, SB 438 which would allow state general funds to install sensors state
wide to activate a system by December 2016.
SVLG Operations Committee supported the legislation and recommended the WC
consider a vote of support. Michelle Moskowitz, UC Berkeley spoke in favor of the
legislation and ask for a vote of support. A Voice Vote was called by Chair Rangel with
the WC voting unanimously in favor of the legislation.
Tax Committee Add and Subtract Policy Work Plan
Add a policy box - Tax fairness: Oppose tax measures which unfairly burden
business, and inhibit economic growth, Tax Committee Recommends Support
Remove a policy box - US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower
business tax rate/territorial tax system, R&D for credit, tax extenders, Tax Committee
Recommends Support
Tax Committee recommended removing a box from workplan in order to create room for
a new box.
The change on the workplan was passed by voice vote, 0 no, 0 abstentions.
Next Working Council Meeting Thursday, April 7, 2016 @ Brocade
Time of adjournment: 10:19am
March 25, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: AB 2507 (Gordon) - Telehealth Reimbursement
Issue: AB 2507 (Gordon) adds safeguards to ensure that patients and providers have guaranteed
coverage and reimbursements for telehealth services. AB 2507 would provide a viable telehealth
reimbursement structure in California that would require insurers to reimburse telehealth services
in the same way that they would for the delivery of in-person services.
Committee Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the
Health Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
support AB 2507. We will have an official committee position on April 5th.
Background: Telehealth (also known as Telemedicine) refers to the delivery of healthcare
through various telecommunication technologies. Common means of delivery include
technologies such as telephone, video conferencing, texting, or online methods. California payers
and fully integrated health systems are increasingly offering telehealth as consumers demand
more accessible care. Kaiser, one of the State’s largest commercial insurers, expects that the
number of virtual visits in Northern California will exceed the number of in-person appointments
in 2016.
Current law in California recognizes telehealth as a legitimate means of health care delivery;
however, the language of the law is insufficient to guarantee that health care providers will be
reimbursed for telehealth services. As a result, patients who utilize telehealth services find that
health plan providers will deny coverage for some services. Conversely, healthcare providers do
not receive reimbursements for some services.
Analysis: Currently, 27 of the 50 states within the United States have parity laws which enforce
coverage for telehealth services. Each particular state adopts their own provisions and safeguards
within parity laws to guarantee coverage and reimbursements. For example, Nevada is the only
state to have telehealth services covered under worker compensation claims. Parity laws in states
such as New York amend the definition of what constitutes an originating site (for a patient) and
distant site (for provider) to guarantee coverage and reimbursements.
Supporters assert that the bill does not mandate or change the way services are delivered but
rather treats telehealth as an equivalent substitute for traditional in-person appointments. By
guaranteeing reimbursements for telehealth services, a financial incentive is created for
healthcare service providers to develop sustainable and large scale programs to increase health
care accessibility for their entire patient network. From a patient perspective, supporters contend
that AB 2507 would remove barriers that restrict patient access, convenience, and ability to
choose a preferred method of healthcare delivery.
Although no parties are formally listed as opposing AB 2507, health plan providers have
expressed concerns that reimbursement is complicated and will vary based on a payer’s
negotiated rate for telehealth services. Because payers all have individual reimbursement
practices, it is difficult to align a single, negotiated reimbursement system.
Financial Impact: The specific financial impact has yet to be determined.
Status: AB-2507 was introduced on 2/19/16 and is scheduled to be heard on 4/19/2016 by the
Assembly Health Committee.
Support:
AARP
ALS Association Golden West Chapter
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (California Division)
California Association of Physician Groups
California Life Science Association
California Medical Association
Collective Health
Loma Linda Medical Center
MD Live
Oscar Health
Planned Parenthood
Providence Health Services
Sharp Health System
Stanford Children’s Health
Sutter Health
Teladoc
The Children’s Partnership
Oppose:
None on file
March 25, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: San Jose Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Ordinance
Issue: As authorized by Assembly Bill 551 and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors,
adopt a resolution authorizing parcels that are located in the City of San Jose to be eligible for
incentives under the County's Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Ordinance.
Committee Recommendation: Support this ordinance respecting the CA State Dept. of Housing
and Community Development concern that housing lands be excluded. This is notable in
ensuring that San Jose and other cities would not have their Housing Elements rejected due to
the ordinance.
Background: On September 28, 2013, Governor Brown approved AB 551, which authorizes a
California county or a city to, after a public hearing, establish by ordinance an Urban Agriculture
Incentive Zone (UAIZ) within its boundaries for the purpose of entering into voluntary
enforceable contracts with landowners for the use of vacant, unimproved, or blighted lands for
small-scale production of agriculture crops.
A county that has established a UAIZ within its boundaries can adopt rules and regulations to
implement and administer the Zone and contracts related to the Zone. The bill authorizes the
county or city to impose a fee on contracting landowners for the reasonable costs of
implementing and administering contracts and the incentive zone.
AB551 provides a tax incentive to private landowners to make more land available for urban
agriculture, while at the same time enabling them to do so at a reduced cost. This does not
prevent landowners from developing when they are ready to do so and it will not stop more
lucrative forms of development from coming into the City. To determine whether a parcel is
eligible to be considered an UAIZ, it must meet the following requirements:
Be at least 0.1 acre in size and no larger than 3 acres (between 4,356 and 130, 680 square
feet)
Be completely dedicated toward commercial or non-commercial agricultural use, free of
any dwellings and only have physical structures that support the agricultural use of the
site as well as having an initial term of at least five years.
Santa Clara County passed a resolution on June 9, 2015 that allows any city in Santa Clara
County to create an UAIZ4. In order for the county to proceed with implementation, San Jose
must authorize parcels that are both located in unincorporated Santa Clara County yet also in the
sphere of influence of San Jose to be eligible for the incentive
Analysis: The City and County of San Francisco and the City of Sacramento have already
passed ordinances for UAIZs. According to a 2014 report from Garden to Table, a San Jose
based urban garden nonprofit, there are at least 585 vacant parcels in San Jose: 135 (23%) of
which are in District 3 and 102 (17.6%) in District 5. [See attached map]
Supporters of UAIZs insist that there are many health, environmental and community
development benefits to city residents including, education about fresh, healthy food and the
effort it takes to produce it; vibrant green spaces and recreation; reduction of blight associated
with long-term vacant land parcels; modeling grounds for new, energy saving, environmentally-
sustainable technologies; and increased neighboring home values.
There are concerns about the possible loss of revenue due to decreased property taxes. Any
revenue loss would be spread between the county and in-county local governments.
Financial Impact: There will be County and city staff time required to process UAIZ contracts.
In addition, landowners might see benefits from property tax assessments of vacant lots. For
example, a one acre parcel is currently assessed at $500,000 and pays approximately $5,000 in
property taxes. With UAIZ ordinance, the assessed value would drop to $12,100, with a tax
liability of $121, for a savings of $4,879. The changes in tax assessment would, however, result
in a loss of revenue for the county.
Status: On December 15, 2015, the San Jose Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Ordinance was
selected as one of the 26 San Jose City Council Priorities for 2016 (rank #12).
Support: San Jose Ordinance
Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors
Garden to Table
La Mesa Verde
Santa Clara County Food System
Alliance
SPUR
The Health Trust
The Open Space Authority
Valley Verde
Veggielution
AB 551 (2013)
San Francisco Urban Agriculture
Alliance [SPONSOR]
Alchemist Community Development
Corporation
American Planning Association,
California Chapter
City Slicker Farms
Elysian Valley Community Garden
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Little City Gardens
Mission Pie
Oakland Food Policy Council
Oakland Roots, the School of Urban
Sustainability
Phat Beets Produce
Planting Justice
Sacramento Natural Foods
Cooperative, Inc.
San Diego Hunger Coalition
Santa Clara County Open Space
Authority
Social Justice Learning Institute of
Inglewood
Soil Born Farms
SPUR
Supervisor David Chiu, District 3,
City and County of San Francisco
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Sustainable Economies Law Center
Ubuntu Green
Victory Gardens San Diego
Opposition: None on File
Source: Garden to Table - http://garden2table.org/node/59
March 25, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Housing and Land Use Committee
SUBJECT: Homeownership Savings Accounts (AB-1736)
Committee Recommendation
Committee recommends a support position on AB 1736 (Steinorth). AB 1736 enables first time
homebuyers to open a Homeownership Savings Account (HSA) with tax deductible
contributions. The HSA provides tax incentives for prospective first-time homeowners who
towards the savings of money towards the purchase of a home.
Background
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), more than half of middle-class families
within California currently allocate 30% or more of their total income towards housing costs.
When it comes to owning a home, many financial barriers exist creates for Californians. They
are often priced out of the housing market due to the high costs of housing. In order to alleviate
housing costs, many make sacrifices and resort to cost saving strategies such as moving outside
to further regions and having to extend their daily commutes to the workplace.
The high costs of housing are partly due to a shortage of new homes being constructed.
According to the California Homebuilding Foundation, the number of annual housing permits
issued in 2015 mirrored the slowest years in the 1980s and 1990s. The lack of new homes
combined with the rising costs of housing directly impact middle-class and affordable housing
markets as prices are driven up due to limited supplies.
AB 1736 provides first time homebuyers with the ability to open a HSA. A “first time
homebuyer” is defined as an individual who have never owned a home nor owned a home within
the past three years. By offering tax incentives, prospective first time homebuyers can save
money towards a purchase of a home, but will also receive tax deductions in the short term. An
individual can make an annual contribution of up to $10,000 (the amount is $20,000 for couples)
towards their HSA. The money held in the account can be used towards any costs associated
with the purchase of a home (i.e. – down payment, closing costs, etc.). It is also important to note
that the funds within a HSA would only be valid towards a home purchase within California. If
the funds are withdrawn for any other reason (i.e: purchasing a home in another state), the funds
would be taxed as regular income.
Analysis
Similar to college savings accounts introduced in other states, AB 1736 utilizes tax incentives in
order to encourage Californians to invest money towards building their future. The HSA attempts
to address many of the financial impediments that Californians experiences when it comes to
purchasing a home for the first time. According to the LAO, homeowners accrue greater savings
and achieve a higher net worth then renters. However, the high housing costs create many
barriers and prevent renters from becoming homeowners. The HSA is aimed towards middle
class families who are in the market for a home or see themselves becoming a homeowner within
the next couple years.
Supporters assert AB 1736 that doesn’t require any new state programs or subsidies and that the
HSA is a financial tool that creates an opportunity for current renters to benefit through tax
incentives while accumulating savings simultaneously. Overall, the HSA makes investing in
homeownership more affordable for Californians.
The opposition contends that the General Fund would be impacted due to a loss in tax revenue. It
is currently unclear to what would be approximate fiscal impact be from decreased tax revenue.
Supporters
California Association of Realtors
California Association of Community Managers
California Building Industry Association
Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Executive Council of Homeowners
Opponents
California Tax Reform Association
DATE: March 22, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Transportation Policy Committee
SUBJECT: Clean Vehicle HOV Stickers
ACTION
Support the Governor’s proposal and AB 1964 (Bloom) to expand and extend
the HOV sticker program for clean vehicles.
BACKGROUND
California has the highest number of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) sales in the
United States. Past legislation allows the DMV to issue an unlimited number of
white HOV access stickers for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Fuel Cell
Vehicles (FCV), and 85,000 green stickers for Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles through
2018. The stickers are an important incentive for drivers to buy EVs – a recent
UCLA study1 showed that 40% of ZEV sales in major urban areas are due to the
availability of green and white HOV access stickers.
A state auditor’s study2 in 2015 found that the current number of ZEVs do not
significantly worsen congestion in carpool lanes across the state. In December
of 2015, the state reached the limit for green PHEV stickers.
The Governor and the state have aggressive goals on ZEV adoption. The Air
Resources Board (ARB) requires that by 2025, 15-20% of all vehicles sold in
California be ZEVs.
As part of the Governor’s budget proposal earlier in the year, the Governor
included a short-term fix that includes the following:
- Removing the 85,000 cap on green PHEV stickers until December 31, 2018.
- Extending the white BEV stickers with no limits through 2025.
1 http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-1111-california-commute-20151111-story.html 2 California’s Alternative Energy and Efficiency Initiatives, California State Auditor, February 2015
- Requiring Caltrans to perform a report by the end of 2017 on traffic
degradation due to this program. The results would be used to set future levels
and policies around white and green stickers.
Assemblymember Bloom is introducing legislation through AB 1964 that would
be a longer-term fix for carpool lane access for ZEVs. The idea is that stickers
would be issued on a 3-year rotating basis so people are staying in the HOV
lanes for a set period of time. This allows more drivers to access the HOV lanes
without significantly worsening carpool lane congestion and provides a
continual incentive for new ZEV adoption.
ANALYSIS
The Leadership Group supports clean vehicle technology. We encouraged early
adoption of plug-in hybrids and have supported legislation that supports electric
vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Since carpool stickers are an incentive for EV and PHEV purchases and the state
auditor hasn’t found that ZEVs are making congestion worse, the Transportation
Policy Committee recommends that the Leadership Group support both the
Governor’s short term fix and AB 1964.
SUPPORTERS
- ChargePoint
- GM
- Linde
OPPONENTS
Unknown
Date: March 23, 2016
To: Working Council
From: Heather Miranda, Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Policy
Committee
Re: 1/2 Cent Transportation Sales Tax Measure on June Ballot in San Benito
County
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation
The Transportation Policy Committee recommends that Working Council supports the
San Benito Transportation Sales Tax Measure.
Background
The measure is projected to raise $8 million annually over 30 years, and includes an
expenditure plan that cuts revenue into three main titles:
Highway 25 $120 million Improve Safety
Reduce Congestion
Road Repair and
Maintenance
$72 million 48% to County of San
Benito
48% to City of Hollister
4% to San Juan Bautista
Local Projects $48 million West Gateway
Improvement Project
Fairview Road
Improvements
Complete Streets
Implementation –City of
Hollister (Nash/Tres
Pinos/McCray Streets)
Anzar, Aromitas & Carr
Road Realignment
State Route 156 & the
Alameda/Monterey Rd
Intersection
Transit Improvements
Safe Routes to School
Other projects to improve
safety and traffic flow on
local roads
San Benito is working towards a sales tax measure to fund transportation projects
throughout the county—on February 18, 2016 the measure was placed on the June
ballot via unanimous vote by the County Board of Directors. When surveyed, one
quarter of voters polled pointed to transportation as a top-of-mind concern, with almost
nine in ten voters saying there is at least some need for additional funding for the
county’s transportation network.
Current polling shows that the measure is supported by about 63% of voters, with 5%
leaning yes if prompted. However, support is shown to drop to 62% after messages in
support and opposition. The importance of an oversight committee is crucial, since four
in five voters support the existence of the committee, and three in four voters point of
the detailed expenditure plan as a reason to support the measure. The threshold for this
measure to pass is a supermajority—2/3 or 66.67%.
Staff Recommendation
As an ally for congestion relief in and around the Bay Area, and since most of SBC’s
residents who work commute to Silicon Valley, the Transportation Policy Committee
recommends that Working Council votes to support the San Benito Transportation Sales
Tax Measure. Our support would entail lending our name as an endorser for the
measure and raising a nominal amount of money for the campaign.
DATE: April 7, 2016 TO: Working Council FROM: Amanda Montez, Senior Director, Housing and Community Development SUBJECT: AB-2502 Protecting Local Inclusionary Housing Programs (Mullins/Chiu)
Action The Housing and Land Use Committee recommends a support position on AB 2502, which would protect locally enacted inclusionary housing programs for rental properties, which help ensure that all new housing developments include a certain percentage of homes affordable to lower-income households.
Background AB 2502 restores local governments’ ability to enact inclusionary housing programs by clarifying that Costa-Hawkins (California’s regulations around rent control/stabilization) does not apply. The bill would amend the state’s Planning and Zoning Law, the statutory scheme from which much of a local government’s land use powers are derived, to make clear that inclusionary zoning is a permissible land use power. Essentially, this clarifies that local jurisdictions may require, as a condition of approval, inclusion of affordable units in a multiple unit rental development. Inclusionary housing programs have been in place in California for decades. However, an appellate court decision—Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, 175 Cal. App. 4th 1396 (2009)—has created uncertainty and confusion for local governments and housing advocates regarding the future viability of this important local land use tool. In Santa Clara County, these programs were halted or ended in response to Palmer. Inclusionary Housing programs for new rental units would require developers to set aside a certain percentage of units to be rented at a set affordable rate (as determined by individual cities and by official definitions of extremely low income, very low income, and low income) or (potentially) to pay an in lieu fee instead. This would create much needed new affordable units. No expiration dates or sunsets were given in regards to the length of time the unit must remain designated as affordable, and would likely be determined by individual cities. Analysis The Leadership Group has a strong history of supporting inclusionary housing policies at the state and local level. The recent California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. San Jose, further validated by the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, left inclusionary housing policies legally applicable in new for sale multi-unit housing. The Leadership Group had joined an Amicus Brief in favor of the City of San Jose’s position in that case. This bill would complete the process of fully validating inclusionary housing policies in both rental and for sale units. AB 2502 is identical to AB 1229 (Atkins, 2013), which Governor Brown vetoed, noting that he wanted to await the outcome of CBIA v. City of San Jose, the case referred to earlier as challenging the constitutionality of inclusionary policies. The Leadership Group supported AB 1229.
While this does not have an impact on the state General Fund, it could generate substantial funds for use by cities’ Affordable Housing Trust Funds if in lieu fees are collected from developers that do not choose to set aside specific units as affordable. The bill will be heard in committee on March 22nd
Supporters (major listed only)
Western Center on Law & Poverty (co-sponsor) California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-sponsor) Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (co-sponsor)
Opponents (major listed only)
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
California Building Industry Association
California Apartment Association
Date: March 18, 2016
To: Working Council
From: Transportation Policy Committee (pending 4/6 meeting)
Re: Mass Transit for Seniors, Disabled, Low-Income, and Students Category for
Potential Transportation Measure
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation
The Transportation Policy Committee recommends that the Leadership Group support
funding the mass transit for seniors, disabled, low-income and students category at $350
million as part of the potential Santa Clara County Transportation Measure Expenditure
Plan.
Background
The Leadership Group has been looking at a variety of overall project categories for the
potential November 2016 Transportation Measure. One of the project categories is the
mass transit for seniors, disabled, low-income and students category. We would like TPC
to weigh in on what the transportation measure would fund in this category for the po-
tential transportation measure.
According to a recent Transit Choices Report by Jarrett Walker, more than 32 million trips
were made in 2015 on VTA buses. Only 3% of people in Santa Clara County use transit
to get to work. This number rises to 10 - 35% in certain areas of the county that have
land use densities, walkable neighborhoods and quality transit service (e.g. east San
Jose and the El Camino Real corridor).
Over the past 15 years and through 2 recessions, VTA’s total quantity of service has de-
creased 20% and ridership has fallen 23%. The farebox recovery ratio (how much reve-
nue comes from fares compared to the overall cost of the service) for VTA is around
14%, which is far below many sister transit agencies.
VTA’s core bus system carries 75% of the weekday average daily riders in Santa Clara
County. The core system generally has frequent service but multiple stops to serve a lo-
cal community well. Rapid buses (e.g. 522 on El Camino Real and 523 on Stevens Creek
Blvd) that offer limited stops and faster travel times. VTA also has an express bus system
that generally travels longer distances and connects residential areas with major job
areas.
According to the Jarrrett Walker report, frequent service means that a bus comes at
least every 15 minutes. This is the threshold where people trust the frequency enough to
not need to consult a schedule.
Fixed route transit service like buses or light-rail don’t always meet the needs of the vul-
nerable in our communities. Frail seniors, for example, may have a hard time walking to
stations. Lifeline is a MTC program that uses existing state and federal resources to fund
community-based transportation projects. In Santa Clara County, VTA and the County
Social Services Agency has administered this program to fund services from other pro-
viders such as Outreach’s Together We Ride program that funds transportation for
homeless families, veterans, emancipated foster youth and other vulnerable popula-
tions to housing, employment, food and other support services. These projects are solic-
ited and scored by a Lifeline Transportation Committee and approved by the County
Board of Supervisors and the VTA Board.
Recommendation
The Transportation Policy Committee proposes that the mass transit for seniors, disabled,
low-income and students category be funded at $350 million over 30 years.
The funds should primarily be spent on the core network, which yields the biggest rid-
ership for each dollar. Measure funds are limited and should be focused on increasing
ridership. The core system should have frequent (15 minute headways) service. Since
this is a 30 year measure and many factors like land use will change, staff is recom-
mending that the funds be tied to the core system without calling out specific routes.
The VTA Board should periodically review the list of core routes and decide if any
changes are necessary.
The committee also recommends that funds be spent in two other categories:
1) Express bus matching funds: Several members of the Leadership Group run private
shuttle services that are basically express buses. Some of our members have indi-
cated interest in pursuing public/private partnerships with VTA to share costs in run-
ning VTA express bus services to dense employment centers. These buses would be
open to all members of the public, including contractors and service workers. A
small fund at VTA that can be used to match private sector dollars would leverage
limited public money.
2) Lifeline Transportation Funding: As mentioned above, fixed rail services don’t ad-
dress the needs of all vulnerable members of our community. Many local non-profits
have creative and targeted programs that sensitively addresses the needs of com-
munities of concern. The committee might consider putting a small amount of mon-
ey into augmenting the Lifeline program.
Date: March 22, 2016
To: Working Council
From: Transportation Policy Committee (pending 4/6 meeting)
Re: Mass Transit in West Valley Corridor
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation
The Transportation Policy Committee recommends that the Leadership Group support
funding the mass transit for the West Valley corridor at $250 million.
Background
The Leadership Group has been looking at a variety of overall project categories for the
potential November 2016 Transportation Measure. One of the project categories is mass
transit for the West Valley Corridor.
Highway 85 carries between 105,000 and 137,000 average daily vehicles, which is
comparable to the volume on Highway 237. During commute hours and directions,
there is a lot of traffic congestion.
VTA has been leading the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board, which consists
of an elected official representative from each of the cities in Santa Clara County
[need to double check this]. The Hwy 85 Policy Advisory Board in February agreed to
study the following project alternatives:
1) No Action: What happens with the status quo?
2) One Express Lane: Convert the existing HOV (carpool) lane into an express lane.
3) Two Express Lanes: Add a second express lane from the Hwy 85/87 interchange
in San Jose to the Hwy 280/85 intersection. As a note, Hwy 85 from 280-Mountain
View has limited right-of-way and from Hwy 87-101 has light-rail in the medium
already. These two areas would continue to have one HOV/Express Lane.
4) Transit Lane Alternatives
a. One HOV Lane and One Transit Lane: In non-peak hours, the transit lane
would be available for both bus and automobile use. The transit lane
would be for both public and private buses.
b. One Express Lane and One Transit Lane: Replace the current HOV lane
with an express lane and add a transit-only lane during commute hours.
c. Light Rail
i. Light Rail in the Median and One HOV Lane
ii. Light Rail in the Median and Convert the HOV Lane to an Express
Lane
At this point, all the alternatives are on the table to be studied. Through the VTA
process, more information about the cost and benefits (mode shift, travel time savings,
etc.) will come to light. In the meantime, here is some information and very rough, back
of the envelope calculations on the options:
- Express lanes have a built-in financing system. The revenue from single occupant
drivers are used to pay the maintenance and operation costs for the project. In
Santa Clara County, the current Hwy 237 express lanes are generating enough
money to cover maintenance and operations as well as increased transit service
along the corridor. Generating positive revenue is not uncommon for express
lane projects when the projects are in high-demand corridors. VTA is estimating
that the full costs of the Hwy 85 project is around $180 million.
- The back of the envelope calculations for light-rail costs are in the $3 billion
range for Hwy 85. Additionally, we’ve seen in Santa Clara County that land use
densities around a station make a big difference in ridership. Some of the lowest
performing light-rail stations in the system (e.g. NASA/Bayshore) have very low
densities/land uses and subsequently very low ridership. Some of the jurisdictions
in West Valley are not supportive of increasing land use densities at the level
needed to support light-rail.
Again, VTA staff is going through a study process that will reveal the benefits and costs
of the various options. This study should be done in the May timeframe. Please note that
many large scale mass transit projects receive funding from several sources (e.g. BART
to SV gets funding from local, state and federal sources). A solution or solutions for the
Hwy 85 corridor could also use local money through this measure to leverage funds
from other places.
Recommendation
The Transportation Policy Committee proposes that the mass transit for the West Valley
corridor be funded at $250 million. On the policy side, Hwy 85 is a very congested
corridor that connects the housing centers to the south with the job center in the north.
There is a clear need for mass transit relief in this corridor. The VTA study will provide
more information on the best solutions to address this congestion.
On the political side, this is a delicate conversation with West Valley and North County
leaders on the amount of funding for the transportation solution(s) in this corridor. Staff
recommends that the $250 million be tied to the results of VTA’s Hwy 85 Policy Advisory
Board.
Date: March 16, 2016
To: Working Council
From: Transportation Policy Committee
Re: Bicycle/Pedestrian Category for Potential November 2016 Transportation
Measure
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation
Recommend that the Leadership Group support funding the dedicated
Bicycle/Pedestrian Category at $250 million as part of the potential Santa Clara County
Transportation Measure Expenditure Plan. Recommend that the Street Maintenance,
County Expressways and Highway Interchange Categories include complete streets
requirements as appropriate.
Background
The Leadership Group has been looking at a variety of overall project categories for the
potential November 2016 Transportation Measure. One of the project categories is the
bicycle/pedestrian category. We would like TPC to weigh in on what the transportation
measure would fund in this category for the potential transportation measure.
Roughly every four years in conjunction with the overall Valley Transportation Plan
update, VTA updates the countywide Bicycle Expenditure Plan. The Bicycle Expenditure
Plan gathers individual bicycle projects through a call for projects process with
jurisdictions. Like the overall Valley Transportation Plan, the bicycle expenditure plan is
financially constrained. The VTA Board adopts criteria to rank the projects into Category
1 and Category 2 projects. Category 1 projects are given priority funding consideration
for the bike programs that VTA administers. After a project scoring committee evaluates
and ranks the projects, the VTA Board approves the final list. The Bicycle Expenditure
Plan doesn’t currently include pedestrian projects.
Safe Routes to Schools is an international movement and national program that funds
bicycle and pedestrian programs in schools and supportive infrastructure projects. The
funding for Safe Routes to Schools come from a variety of sources including federal and
state funds. The National Center for Safe Routes to Schools announced that the
percentage of students who walked or biked to school in the morning had increased
from 12.4% in 2007 to 15.7% in 20121. Locally, there are success stories from places like
Palo Alto, which have used Safe Routes to Schools to create cultural changes around
walking and biking, where bicycling rates to Gunn and Palo Alto High School are
upwards of 40%.
1 http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/promising_examples_and_community_success_stories.cfm
Complete Streets are streets that are designed to enable safe access for all users,
including transit customers, bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. There are
several good design guidelines for complete streets including the National Association
of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guidelines and Urban
Bikeway Design Guidelines. These guidelines provide guidance and best practices on
how to design streets with multi-modal users in mind.
Committee Recommendation
Staff proposes that the dedicated bicycle/pedestrian category of the potential
transportation measure be funded at $250 million over 30 years. Bicycle/pedestrian
improvements can be smaller projects that also leverage other state/federal funding
programs. Staff is recommending that instead of listing individual projects in the
measure, the funds are tied to the countywide bicycle expenditure plan Category 1
projects that includes pedestrian projects. This way, projects can be updated on a
periodic basis through a public process run through VTA. Projects can then reflect the
latest land use plans/needs and leverage dollars from other sources.
In terms of criteria, staff recommends that the Leadership Group advocate for specific
criteria for evaluating projects in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Expenditure Plan. These criteria
should include:
Geographic equity
Gap closure across barriers
Increasing safety
Protected bikeways
Mode shift to biking and walking
Matching funds from other sources
The Committee recommended flexibility for the funds to be spent on educational
programs like Safe Routes to Schools. Safe Routes to Schools programs help relieve
congestion near schools, one of the most congested areas for cities. The programs also
help teach a new generation about bicycling and walking, and encourage early
habits that children will take into their adulthood, resulting in making the choice to walk,
bike, or take transit as adults.
Finally, the committee recommends that the Leadership Group advocate for complete
streets policies, where appropriate, for the other road categories in the measure (street
maintenance, county expressways, and highway interchanges). These policies will
leverage funding from these other categories to benefit all users.
March 25, 2016
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: 2016 Ballot Measure - California Drug Price Relief Act
Issue: The California Drug Price Relief Act is a November 2016 ballot measure that would impose
price controls on prescription drug purchases funded by the state. Under the measure, eligible state
agencies would receive a lower or equivalent rate for pharmaceuticals as the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Committee Recommendation: Oppose
Background: The California Drug Price Relief Act, which is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, proposes to cap the cost of prescription drugs for California state agencies that serve
HIV patients, inmates, retirees, and low-income individuals. The proposal would mandate that the
state pay the same as or less than the rates paid by the VA for prescription drug purchases.
The initiative would prohibit the state, or any state administrative agency or other state entity, from
entering into any agreement with a drug manufacturer for the purchase of a prescribed drug unless
the net cost of the drug is the same as or less than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the VA.
This price ceiling would also apply to all programs where the state or any state administrative agency
or other state entity is the payer for the drug, even if it did not purchase the drug directly.
Supporters of the initiative assert that eligible state agencies would increase savings for California
due to lower expenditures for prescription drugs and would ultimately contribute to a reduction in
health care costs incurred by the state and taxpayers. According to supporters, more than 5 million
Californians who are enrolled in eligible state agencies and programs will benefit from the measure,
including:
2.7 million non-HMO Medi-Cal beneficiaries
2.2 million CalPERS and California State Teachers Retirement System members
112,000 inmates within California prison system
31,000 patients who receive AIDS drugs from government assistance programs
Analysis: For the more than 5 million patients who are served by eligible state agencies, the impact
on direct pricing only appears to be minimal as the majority of these patients already pay the lowest
out-of-pocket prices for prescriptions drugs. In addition, the measure will provide little to no benefit
for private sector employees because it does not apply to those covered by private insurance through
their employer.
Over 30 million Californians will not receive any benefits from the California Drug Price Relief Act.
This group includes:
20 million patients covered by private sector plans sponsored by employers
9.9 million patients covered by Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (80% of all Medi-Cal
beneficiaries)
1.5 million patients enrolled in Covered California plans
Opponents of the measure cite findings from economists and analysts predicting that a price cap and
extensive price controls could actually raise prescription prices for Californians. For example, the
measure could limit the competition between pharmaceutical companies that contributes to lower
drug costs for patients. Opponents also worry that imposing government price controls on business
sets a dangerous precedent and can hamper the development of future innovative treatments.
According to sponsors of the initiative, the state could benefit from VA drug prices that are about
20% less than the lowest price available for state agencies. However, this rate is difficult to
substantiate because drug pricing for the VA is not publicly available. The VA has also consistently
rejected measures to expand their prescription model to other groups, including state programs
because it could result in increased prices to the VA.
The state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported in a recent analysis that they were unable to
obtain sufficient information on the lowest prices paid for prescribed drugs by the VA to enable a
reasonable comparison between the prices paid by the VA and the prices paid by the state. For this
reason, the LAO was unable to provide an estimate of the measure's potential fiscal impact on state
costs for prescribed drugs. The LAO’s concluding opinion was that the measure may result in a
substantial net change in state or local finances.
Finally, opponents of the Drug Price Relief Act contend that the measure could result in the state
losing tens of millions of dollars in existing state rebates and could force the state to pay more for
prescription medications.
Financial Impact: The specific financial impact has yet to be determined. The state Legislative
Analyst and Director of Finance maintain that the measure may result in a substantial net change in
state or local finances.
Status: The California Drug Price Relief Act recently qualified for the November 2016 California
Ballot.
Support:
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Oppose:
AbbVie Inc.
Amgen
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
California Life Sciences Association
Eli Lilly
Johnson & Johnson
Novartis
Otsuka America
Pfizer Inc.
Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMa)
Purdue Pharma
March 25, 2016
TO: Working Council FROM: Education Policy Committee SUBJECT: SB 66 (Leyva and McGuire): Cross-agency data collection and reporting for
California Community Colleges’ career technical education programs
Issue: This bill implements statutory changes to align common outcome metrics for all state-
funded Career Technical Education programs with federal reporting requirements and authorizes
the Department of Consumer Affairs to sharing licensing data with the California Community
Colleges.
Committee Recommendation: Support
Background: The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that we will face a labor
shortage of 1.5 million workers with “some college” education by 2025. This category of
“middle-skill” workers includes individuals with associate degrees or specific certificates and
these workers earn 20-30% more than those with only a high school diploma. In 2014, the
California Community College (CCC) Board of Governors commissioned the Task Force on
Workforce, Job Creation and a Strong Economy (Task Force) to help address this skills gap. The
Task Force included representatives from community colleges, public education, workforce
training and economic development entities, the employer community, labor organizations, and
community based organizations. Following a year of research, the Task Force issued 25
recommendations which were adopted by the Board of Governors in November 2015. Senate
Bill 66, sponsored by the Chancellor’s Office of the CCC, implements statutory changes in order
to improve Career Technical Education (CTE) programs as recommended by the Task Force.
SB 66 streamlines reporting requirements to avoid duplicative administrative burdens.
Furthermore, SB 66 authorizes data sharing so that the California Community College
Chancellor’s Office can assess whether graduates ultimately receive third-party licenses to allow
them to work in their fields of study.
Analysis: In order to fully implement the 25 recommendations put forth by the Task Force,
legislative, administrative, and regulatory changes are necessary. This bill codifies legislative
changes needed to improve and streamline data collection and measurement. Currently, no
opposition to this bill is on file. Overall, SB 66 will strengthen CTE programs in order to address
the growing shortage of qualified employees and to improve the economic opportunities for
California’s students.
To measure employment outcomes of students who participate in CCC CTE programs and
recommend improvements, SB 66 requires the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to share
licensing data with the CCCs. Information on licensure has not historically been a data element
collected by the community colleges because these are industry licenses awarded by separate
certifying bodies. Licensing information would be used as one measure of successfully
completing a CTE program. The provisions of this bill allow the DCA to share licensing
information with the CCC Chancellor’s Office for the specific purpose of evaluating
programmatic outcomes. Access to this additional information would enable the colleges to
measure and improve student outcomes of career technical education programs.
Secondly, this bill includes provisions to align performance accountability outcome measures to
the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Currently, CTE programs must report
distinct metrics to satisfy requirements of state and federal funding streams. Enactment of SB 66
would reduce the burden of data collection and reporting, establish common reporting across
districts, and lessens the overall administrative burden associated with workforce development
programs.
Financial Impact: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, costs to the DCA
include one-time administrative costs of about $100,000 to make the data system changes
necessary to maintain confidentiality of the information. The continuing workload to provide the
CCC Chancellor’s Office with licensure information is minor and absorbable. The CCC
Chancellor’s Office indicates that costs to align the outcome measures are minor and absorbable.
Status: Introduced in the Senate on 01/07/15 and referred to Education Committee on 01/15/15.
Senate Committee on Education passed on 01/13/16. Senate Appropriations passed on 01/19/16.
Senate passed and ordered the bill to the Assembly on 01/25/16. Currently held at desk in the
Assembly.
Support: California Community College Chancellor’s Office (Sponsor), Los Angeles Chamber
of Commerce, California Chamber of Commerce, Community College League of California, San
Bernardino Community College District, Los Rios Community College District, San Diego
Community College District.
Oppose: None on file.
1
Date: March 29, 2016
To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Committee
From: Ria Varghese (Coordinator, Energy and Environment); Tim McRae (Sr. Energy
Director)
RE: SB 286 (Hertzberg) – Direct Access Cap
Issue
SB 286 would expand the Direct Access (DA) cap by a statewide total of 8,000 GWh
over a period of not more than 3 years. The bill would require that 75% of an electric
service provider’s new direct transactions be procured from renewable energy
resources during 2016 and increasing to 100% by the end of 2020.
Energy Committee Recommendation
Support
Summary
SB 286 directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to open a second phase
for customers to enroll in Direct Access in 2016. Once open, the program will phase in
direct transactions over a three year time frame. By the end of the three year phase in,
the allowable cap will be have been raised by 8,000 GWh from the amount authorized
under SB 695 (the first phase in period) for all non-residential customers to acquire
electric services from a DA provider instead of the utility. Providers will continue to be
subject to the same Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and AB 32 requirements as
utilities are currently. Furthermore, the bill:
Requires the CPUC to ensure that 75% of the new direct transactions are for
electricity products from renewable resources1 during 2016 and increasing to
100% by December 31, 2020.
Prohibits an electric service provider from offering full consolidated billing
beginning January 1, 2016.
Requires nonresidential retail end-use DA customers to pay for their
proportionate share of specified costs for efficiency, low-income, research and
other programs.
The bill would require that an electrical corporation continue to construct, own and
operate distribution system equipment, and continue to provide support functions
though its own employees, except that construction of distribution system equipment
and line clearance tree trimming may be performed under contract. This requirement
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021.
1 For definition of eligible renewable resources see California RPS Program (Article 16 (commencing with Section
399.11)).
2
“Distribution system equipment” is defined as the portions of the electric delivery system
beginning with equipment that operates at voltages lower than that controlled by the
CA ISO up to and including a customer’s electric meter.
“Distribution system support functions” are defined as the functions currently provided
by an electrical corporation, including, but not limited to, billing, customer service, call
centers, other support services, and line clearance tree trimming.
The concern with an earlier version of the bill was that only electrical corporations can
offer distribution system equipment and support functions on the grid through the end
of 2020. The bill was modified on March 1, 2016 to include the following clause:
“This section does not prohibit customer or third-party owned or operated distributed
generation equipment or energy storage equipment on either of the following:
The customer side of the meter
The utility side of the meter if that equipment is either under contract to the
electrical corporation or under an interconnection tariff.”
Background
As a part of the deregulation of California’s electric industry in 1998, a program referred
to as Direct Access (DA) was implemented. DA offered all customers the option to
begin purchasing their electric commodity services from a third-party Energy Service
Provider (ESP) instead of continuing to receive these services from a utility. The utility
continues to deliver the customer's power, but the customer can choose an alternate
provider for electricity supply, in order to obtain a lower rate or a customized product,
such as green energy. Additionally, the utility continues to handle all line maintenance
and service outages.
Legislation enacted as a result of the 2000-2001 energy crises in California required the
suspension of DA. In a decision issued by the CPUC in 2001, the CPUC adopted rules
that suspended the rights of new customers to purchase electricity from an ESP.
Although no new customers were permitted to switch to DA, customers with existing DA
contracts could remain on DA.
In 2010, CPUC established a four-year phase-in of new DA load caps. Each phase of
the enrollments under the cap was filled. CPUC issued a decision in December of 2012
that adopts new procedures to govern customer enrollment in DA when there is space
under the current DA caps. Currently the cap for DA is about 12% of statewide electric
load and there are approximately 44,000 DA customers, the vast majority of which are
commercial businesses, including schools, hospital, universities, grocery stores, and retail
businesses. There is currently a waitlist for DA and demand appears to remain high.
DA suppliers fall under the same regulations as the utilities meaning that they must
comply with the RPS, cap and trade, and CPUC emissions performance requirements.
DA customers pay the same charges as normal utility customers and CPUC is tasked
with ensuring there is no rate impact to remaining customers.
3
Analysis
The mission of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Committee is to advocate for
policies and programs that reflect reliable, high-quality, environmentally-responsible,
and competitively-priced energy and power in an open and transparent market-based
system. As this mission statement indicates, the Energy Committee has long supported
DA opportunities for its member companies through advocacy, testimony to the CPUC,
and workshops with direct access providers. SB 286 would provide opportunities for new
DA customers while also aligning with the goals of the state RPS, which the Leadership
Group also supports. Last year, Energy Committee voted to support the initial version of
the bill, then recommended to Oppose Unless Amended when the amendment
regarding Distribution System Equipment and Support Functions was added.
Status
Introduced on February 19, 2015 and was passed by the Senate on June 3, 2015 (34-2).
It stalled in the Assembly Appropriations committee late in 2015. The bill was recently
amended in the Assembly on March 1, 2016 and re-referred to the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations.
Support
CA Retailers Association, Constellation, Noble Energy Solutions, TechNet, Recurrent
Energy (among others)
Opposition
CA State Association of Electrical Workers, Coalition of CA Utility Works, NRDC, PG&E,
SDG&E, SCE (among others)
Date: March 28, 2016 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director; Ria Varghese, Energy & Environment Coordinator RE: AB 2454 (Williams) Energy Procurement Plans
Issue This bill would require electrical corporations to consider the findings of a potential study when assessing the availability of cost-effective, reliable and feasible demand response resources, including both load-modifying and supply-side resources. In addition, this bill would require the Public Utilities Commission to report to the legislature within 60 days after the issuance of a final decision approving capacity additions in excess of 500 MW that the selected resources are consistent with the preferred resources loading order. Recommendation Energy Committee voted to Support Summary Under existing law, the Public Utilities Act requires the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to review and accept, modify, or reject a procurement plan for each electrical corporation in accordance with specified elements, incentive mechanism and objectives. The act requires that an electrical corporation’s proposed procurement plan include certain elements such as proof that it will first meet its unmet needs through all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost effective, reliable and feasible. This bill would add the term “demand response” to this provision. The bill would require the electrical corporation to consider the findings of a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study due to the commission in 2016, and to consider both load-modifying and supply-side demand response resources while determining the availability of cost-effective, reliable, and feasible demand response resources. The bill requires the CPUC to demonstrate to the Legislature within 60 days after any new capacity additions in excess of 500 MW has been approved by the Commission in a final decision that the prioritized procurement of energy efficiency and demand response resources was achieved. Under existing law, when additional procurement is authorized for an electrical corporation, the CPUC is required to ensure that the costs are allocated in a fair and equitable manner to all customers, that there is no cost-shifting among customers of load-serving entities, and that community choice aggregators may self-provide renewable integration resources.
Analysis In March 2014, the CPUC issued a Decision (D-14-03-026) ordering that Demand Response programs be bifurcated into:
Load Modifying Resources: Modify load through customers’ behavioral change; for example, time-of-use rates, and are administered by the IOUs or third-party providers.
Supply Resources: Reduce or increase demand at a particular time & location and by a specific amount. They can be scheduled and dispatched into the CA ISO energy markets when and where needed; for example, the Base Interruptible Program.
The purpose of bifurcating Demand Response strategies was to assist the CPUC in focusing on the strengths of each Demand Response category to improve effectiveness and increase the amount of overall load shed. In August 2014, California’s investor-owned utilities collaborated with organizations like Clean Coalition,
Environmental Defense Fund, CAISO, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Marin Clean Energy, EnerNOC, Johnson Controls and Sierra Club (among others) to filed a settlement agreement with the CPUC. The settlement agreement addressed Phase Three of CPUC Rulemaking 13-09-11, which was opened in September 2013 to enhance the role of DR in meeting the state’s resource planning needs and operational requirements. The settlement did not set new deployment goals for DR, but the parties agreed to the parameters of a Demand Response Potential Study to be conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and provided a set of criteria for establishing future goals, to be informed by the results of the proposed study. The study would look into issues related to integrating DR into the wholesale market and also include findings on the technical, economic and achievable DR potential. In December 2014, the CPUC issued their Decision (D-14-12-024) with their modified settlement agreement and approved $3 million for the proposed DR Potential Study. The results of this study are scheduled to be released to the Commission in mid-2016. Parties involved in the proposed settlement agreement (settling parties) were given 15 days following the issuance of this decision to accept the modifications included or request other courses of action. The settling parties resubmitted the settlement as revised by the decision and requested that the Commission approve it as a joint agreement. The Commission approved the joint agreement in D. 15-02-007, issued February 13, 2015. However, in November 2015, the CPUC issued a Decision (D 15-11-042) addressing the valuation of load modifying demand response and Demand Response cost-effectiveness protocols. In this decision, the CPUC determined that event-based load modifying demand response would not be allotted any capacity value and thereby prohibited the IOUs from attributing any capacity value to these resources as of January 1, 2018. The Joint DR Parties (Comverge, CPower, EnerNOC, EnergyHub and Johnson Controls) have applied for rehearing of this decision, claiming that the Commission had reached a decision addressing valuation of DR programs prior to the release of study on DR Potential and not consistent with the process that had been agreed upon in the settlement agreement. Phase I of the study is due for completion in April 2016 & Phase II by August 2016. California utilities procure the capacity to meet the expected needs of their electricity customers through a process known as Local Capacity Requirement Request for Offers (LCR-RFO). IOUs are supposed to show that they first met their unmet needs through all available energy efficiency and DR resources that are cost effective, reliable and feasible. However, this does not always occur. For example, last year when Southern California Edison (SCE) was looking to fill expected needs and fill the gap left by the retirement of the 2,160 MW San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), SCE did not procure sufficient DR in the solicitation. By creating an enforcement mechanism through this bill, DR companies hope to make the CPUC accountable for ensuring that energy efficiency, DR and renewable energy are represented adequately in future energy procurement plans. The addition of the term “demand response” is in line with industry nomenclature and also addresses the fact that DR does not only have to be a load reduction but could be an increase as well. The Leadership Group has supported efforts to make DR work in Silicon Valley, including playing a key role in organizing member companies to participate in DR programs in the wake of the California energy crisis. Support for making DR work makes the grid more reliable, a workplan priority, and is in line with our traditional support for energy efficiency. Status Introduced on February 19, 2016. Last amended on March 17. Referred to committee on U&C. Hearing scheduled for April 6. Support: Clean Power Campaign (sponsor), EnerNOC, Advanced Energy Management Alliance, EDF, TechNet Opposition: Independent Energy Producers