2001 Vetoed Bills

AB 69 Wright Electricity: governmental entities in Los Angeles County: contracts
Vetoed

Existing law prohibits a city or municipally owned electric utility from selling electric power to the retail customers of a public utility unless the city or municipally owned electric utility agrees to let the public utility make sales of electric power to its retail customers. Existing law requires that a customer of a public utility that purchases electricity through a direct transaction contract pay certain generation-related transition charges. This bill would permit specified governmental entities that are served by the Southern California Edison Company within Los Angeles County to purchase electricity for use in those areas from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The bill would require that the electricity be used only for facilities owned or leased by a governmental entity that are used for governmental purposes. The bill would prohibit reselling the electricity. The bill would not require that reciprocity of electrical sales be provided to the Southern California Edison Company. The bill would exempt the sales from specified generation-related transition charges. This bill contains other related provisions.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 69 without my signature.

This bill would allow specific governmental entities in Los Angeles County, which are currently Southern California Edison customers, to enter into direct-access electricity contracts with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Last June, approximately two percent of the customer load in the territory served by the three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) were receiving power from direct access providers. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recently suspended direct access, but the percentage of load subject to direct access transactions grew to as much as 13 percent or more prior to the suspension. That growth creates a significant and unfair cost burden for those customers who continue to receive power from the IOUs and the Department of Water Resources.

This rapid growth in direct access necessitates more concise cost-containment provisions for the remaining IOU customers than those contained in this bill, and those provisions should apply to all direct access contracts.

Moreover, this bill does not clearly authorize fees to cover costs that may result when direct access customers return to service with an IOU, which would create new and unanticipated procurement obligations for the IOU. Those new procurement obligations could come about solely because the direct access provider no longer chooses to provide service to its customers because of rising electricity costs, and instead passes that burden on to the IOU and its customers.

Any efforts to allow direct access must be equitable for all stakeholders.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

AB 104 Nation State Coastal Conservancy: motor vehicles: environmental impacts: mitigation
Vetoed 10/14/2001

Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program which is administered by the State Coastal Conservancy (conservancy) in order to address identified resources and recreational goals of the San Francisco Bay area, in a coordinated, comprehensive, and effective way. Under that program, the conservancy is authorized to undertake projects and award grants in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area in order to achieve specified goals. Existing law establishes a San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program Account in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund, for the purposes of depositing and distributing funds for the administration and implementation of the program with the money in the account segregated into 2 specified subaccounts. This bill would authorize the conservancy to establish a 3rd subaccount (the Motor Vehicle Mitigation Subaccount) within the account and to adopt, until January 1, 2010, a fee of up to $4 upon the registration or renewal of registration of every motor vehicle registered in the County of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, or Sonoma for purposes of funding the subaccount if at least 3 of those counties elect to participate. Until January 1, 2010, the Department of Motor Vehicles would be required to collect these fees upon the request of the conservancy. This bill contains other related provisions.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 104 without my signature.

This bill would increase fees on every San Francisco Bay Area motorist by up to $4 without a vote of the electorate for the purpose of funding water quality projects that mitigate the effects of pollution caused by motor vehicles.

I have supported and the state has provided substantial funding for these types of important projects. Proposition 13, approved by the voters last year, provides

$190 million for water quality nonpoint source projects and $90 million for watershed protection and pollution prevention projects. In addition, I have just signed Assembly Bill 1602, which if approved by the voters on the March 2002 statewide ballot, will provide additional funds to protect our natural resources, including funds that can help address motor vehicle-related water pollution. Specifically, AB 1602 includes $300 million for water quality projects to protect our beaches, lakes, streams and rivers from pollution.

Given the rapid decline of our economy and increasing layoffs, the amount of money this program would raise does not warrant the additional burden on the motoring public.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

AB 960 Keeley Crime prevention: environmental prosecution project
Vetoed 10/14/2001

Under existing law, various programs are established in the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) and administered by that office. This bill would require OCJP to establish the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project, the purpose of which would be to promote, through uniform and effective prosecution and local assistance, particularly in rural counties, the effective enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Veto Message

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 960 without my signature.

This bill would appropriate $300,000 from the General Fund to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning to support the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project (ECPP).

Notwithstanding the merits of this excellent program, I must veto this measure. Due to the rapid decline or our economy and a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion through the first three months of this fiscal year alone, I have no choice but to oppose additional General Fund spending. However, I am directing the Environmental Protection and the Resource Agencies to bring affected state agencies and stakeholders together to help craft a long term solution for supporting the ECPP.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

AB 1331 Kelley Water quality: grant program
Vetoed 10/10/2001

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards are the principal agencies that regulate water quality in the state. This bill would require the state board to establish a grant program to benefit local or regional projects undertaken by local public agencies that will preserve the quality of prescribed groundwater supplies in Riverside County, and that will facilitate the production, transportation, or reclamation of wastewater for beneficial uses, as prescribed. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1331 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board to establish a grant program to benefit local or regional projects undertaken by local public agencies that are designed to preserve the quality of prescribed groundwater supplies in Riverside County and facilitate the production, transportation, or reclamation of wastewater for beneficial uses.

While I am supportive of local efforts to protect our State's groundwater supplies, the program could create significant future pressure on the General Fund, which raises concerns during this period of fiscal constraints and limited General Fund resources. Given the rapid decline of our economy and a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion through the first three months of this fiscal year alone, I have no choice but to oppose additional General Fund spending.

However, other funding sources do exist to address the groundwater concerns in Riverside County, including State Revolving Fund loans and water reclamation funding through the Proposition 13 bond funds. We have already provided a $600,000 grant from Proposition 13 monies and will work with the author to try to identify other existing sources of money from other than the General Fund. Given these existing programs, the case for a new grant program is not compelling.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

AB 1680 Committee on Labor and Employment Farm Labor Contractors: educational classes
Vetoed 10/13/2001

Existing law requires a person who is issued a farm labor contractor license to enroll and participate in at least 8 hours of relevant, educational classes each year. Under existing law, the classes are required to be chosen from a list of approved classes prepared by the Labor Commissioner, in consultation with specified persons and entities. This bill would require a holder of a contractor license to enroll and participate in the required classes after September 1, 2002, and would require the Labor Commissioner to conduct those classes, in consultation with the specified persons and entities. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to charge a fee sufficient to cover the administrative costs associated with the establishment and annual operation of the classes and would require the Labor Commissioner to take appropriate steps to reduce the cost of the classes. The bill would make other related changes. This bill contains other related provisions.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1680 without my signature.

This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to conduct the educational classes required for obtaining a farm labor contractor’s license.

Educational classes required of farm labor contractors were mandated by legislation I previously signed. I am confident that the Department of Industrial relations will implement that measure appropriately. There is no reason to change the law.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

AB 1686 Thomson Rice Straw Utilization Program
Vetoed 10/05/2001

Existing law establishes the Agricultural Biomass Utilization Account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund, which is administered by the Department of Food and Agriculture in consultation with the State Air Resources Board and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Existing law appropriates $2,000,000 from the General Fund, minus administrative costs of up to 7%, to provide grants to persons that utilize rice straw for various purposes. Existing law also provides a tax credit to taxpayers and corporations in an amount equal to $15 for each ton of rice straw that is grown within California and purchased during the taxable year by the taxpayer or corporation. This bill would establish the Rice Straw Utilization Program to be administered by the Department of Food and Agriculture. The program would grant financial assistance to rice growers and end users of rice straw in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin for the purpose of finding uses for rice straw. The bill would, until June 30, 2008, require the department to distribute one rice straw use credit to a person for each ton of rice straw that person produces each year, excluding any amount of rice straw burned by that person, up to a maximum number of credits determined by the department, and would require the department to annually determine the value of an individual credit and the number of credits available for distribution, based on the amount of funds available for the program each year. The bill would also require the department to annually certify the total amount of rice straw utilization tax credits approved during the previous tax year, and provide that certification to the Department of Finance by March 1 of each year. The bill would also establish the Rice Straw Utilization Program Account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. The bill would also require the department to implement a comprehensive market development program that procures products composed of at least 20% of rice straw instead of wood-based or substitute products. This bill would also appropriate moneys equivalent to the remaining amount available to fund the rice straw tax credit, as specified, and would reallocate moneys previously appropriated to the agricultural biomass utilization grant program to the account, thereby making an appropriation. This bill contains other existing laws.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1686 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Rice Straw Utilization Program by allowing end users of rice straw to claim a $15 per ton tax credit for rice straw. To achieve this goal, the bill would appropriate $788,000 from the General Fund, an amount equal to the unallocated rice straw tax credits from 1997 through 2000. Moreover, it would create pressure for an estimated $350,000 General Fund appropriation each year until 2007. Given the rapid decline in the economy and a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion through the first three months of this fiscal year alone, I have no choice but to oppose additional General Fund spending.

The State, however, has dedicated significant resources to finding alternative uses for rice straw and biomass. In 1997, legislation was signed that established a two-year, $5 million, grant program to develop alternative uses for rice straw. This was supplemented by an additional $1 million in this year's budget. In 2000, I signed into law legislation that provided $2 million for the Agricultural Biomass Utilization Account for the purpose of providing grant incentives for businesses that utilize biomass, including rice straw.

These grants will be awarded by the Department of Food and Agriculture in the near future and I believe that we should give this program time to accomplish its purposes before embarking on a new approach. Finally, I recently approved the re-allocation of $3.5 million to support the expansion of the Agricultural Biomass to Energy Incentive Grant Program by signing SB 64xx. For the long-term benefit of the environment and the agricultural economy, we must work together to resolve the rice straw problem, and I remain committed to supporting the development of alternative uses for rice straw.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

SB 286 Soto School safety: hazardous substances
Vetoed 09/23/2001

Existing law requires the State Department of Education, in cooperation with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health within the Department of Industrial Relations, to formulate a listing of chemical compounds used in school programs that includes the potential hazards and estimated shelf life of each compound. Existing law also prohibits the order or purchase of any art or craft material that is deemed by the State Department of Health Services to contain a toxic substance by any school, school district, or governing authority of a private school for use by pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 6, inclusive. This bill would require the State Department of Education, in consultation with the State Department of Health Services, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health within the Department of Industrial Relations, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, to study and report to the Legislature by May 1, 2002, on the use of substances as part of educational instruction that are listed in the California Science Safety Handbook for Public Schools as carcinogenic or mutagenic or that are identified as having chemical risks that outweigh educational benefits.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 286 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Department of Education, in consultation with the State Department of Health Services, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to conduct a study and report to the Legislature by May 1, 2002, on the use of hazardous substances as part of educational instruction. This bill could result in $250,000 in General Fund costs to contract for the required study and report to the Legislature.

This bill is unnecessary, as existing law allows the governing board of any school district to request the consultation services from the California Occupational Safety and Health Consultation Service to ensure hazardous materials are properly being used and stored safely in school laboratories. Existing law also prohibits K-6 school districts from purchasing any art or craft material with toxic substances causing chronic illness. For school districts with students in grades 7-12, any part or craft materials with toxic substances must meet specified labeling standards. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

SB 392 Oller State agencies and officers: reports
Vetoed 10/09/2001

Existing law requires the Secretary of State to report annually to the Legislature on a governmental history documentation program administered by the State Archives to provide through the use of oral history a continuing documentation of state policy development. Existing law also requires various state agencies and officers to report to the Director of General Services and to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee specified information regarding goods and services provided by the Prison Industry Authority. The State Records Management Act requires the Director of General Services to report annually to the Governor on the status and progress of programs related to management of records in state government. This bill would delete these reporting requirements.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 392 without my signature.

I am returning this bill in part, because it repeals the annual report to the Governor on the progress of maintenance of State records. The State and Consumer Services Agency’s record management program has proven to be cost effective and beneficial. Given the public’s understandable concern about privacy, it is important for the governor to have these reports as well as the agency’s recommendations.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

SB 1111 Kuehl International trade: environment
Vetoed 10/12/2001

Existing provisions of the United States Constitution grant the United States Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This bill would require the Secretary for Environmental Protection to consult with specified legislative committees, and review and prepare a report that assesses the potential adverse impacts of specified international trade agreements on existing California environmental laws and regulations. The bill would require the Secretary for Environmental Protection , following completion of a draft of the report, to conduct a public hearing that provides an opportunity for public comment. The bill would require that a final report be prepared that analyzes and summarizes the public and legislative comments offered during the comment period, and would require that the report be made available to the Legislature and the public on or before January 1, 2003. The bill would require a summary of the final report to be included in the 'Environmental Report of the Governor' in 2003.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1111 without my signature.

This bill would require the Secretary of Cal-EPA to review and assess the potential impacts of specified international trade agreements on state environmental laws and regulations and to make recommendations to the Legislature based on those findings.

While I share the author’s intent that California’s concerns are represented in the development of trade agreements, including the impact of those agreements on our state environmental laws, this legislation does not effectively fulfill that important objective. Most critically, studying trade agreements after they are already implemented, while meritorious, has little impact on the substance of those agreements. The time to affect an agreement is during the agreement’s development and negotiations.

The State of California already has and will continue to have an important voice in the development of international trade agreements, including their impact on California’s environmental laws and regulations. California has a coveted seat on the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee, which advises the USTR and other federal cabinet officials on trade matters. In addition, many Californians sit on the other 32 federal trade advisory committee, which include a committee devoted specifically to environmental issues. To amplify California’s concerns, the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency has, both informally and in testimony, presented trade negotiators with analyses of trade issues regarding California’s unique issues.

With regard to environmental issues on the California-Mexico border, Cal-EPA has an official slot on the federal Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). In addition, California’s U.S. Senators and Representatives, the largest delegation in Congress, have a direct and constitutionally protected role in the development of trade agreements, and my Administration works regularly with them to ensure that the voices of California are reflected in trade agreements, and their enforcement.

Finally, I have asked the Secretary of the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency to work closely with Cal-EPA and the Legislature in assessing trade initiatives and negotiations and to continue State efforts to advise federal officials on the impact of trade agreements on California’s environmental laws.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

SB 1172 Kuehl Municipally owned electric utilities
Vetoed

(1) Under existing law, a municipality or municipal corporation may operate as a public utility to supply its own electric service. Existing law also authorizes a municipality to sell, lease, or distribute surplus power outside of its corporate limits. This bill, on or before July 1, 2002, would authorize any retail customer or local agency that owns or occupies a contiguous property located within more than one service area, one of which includes the service area of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, that takes electrical service from that department and another electrical service provider, to enter into a direct transaction contract with that department to provide service to that portion of the contiguous property not currently served by that department, as authorized by that department. The bill would provide that a party to a direct transaction contract who owns and operates an electric distribution system within the property served is not subject to specified charges for the term of the direct transaction contract entered into. This bill contains other related provisions.

Veto Message

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1172 without my signature.

This bill would allow specific Southern California Edison customers in Los Angeles County to enter into direct-access electricity contracts with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Last June, approximately two percent of the customer load in the territory served by the three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) were receiving power from direct access providers. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recently suspended direct access, but the percentage of load subject to direct access transactions grew to as much as 13 percent or more prior to the suspension. That growth creates a significant and unfair cost burden for those customers who continue to receive power from the IOUs and the Department of Water Resources.

This rapid growth in direct access necessitates more concise cost-containment provisions for the remaining IOU customers than those contained in this bill, and those provisions should apply to all direct access contracts.

Moreover, this bill does not clearly authorize fees to cover costs that may result when direct access customers return to service with an IOU, which would create new and unanticipated procurement obligations for the IOU. Those new procurement obligations could come about solely because the direct access provider no longer chooses to provide service to its customers because of rising electricity costs, and instead passes that burden on to the IOU and its customers.

Any efforts to allow direct access must be equitable for all stakeholders.

Sincerely,
Gray Davis

2001 Legislation Home | Top of Page