Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2016 Report Card
T H E C A L I F O R N I A L E G I S L A T I V E
Sierra Club California 909 12th Street, Suite 202 Page 1 Sacramento, CA 95814
www.sierraclubcalifornia.org October 2016
(Continued on Page 2)
Surprising Environmental Wins Followed by Unexpected Losses
The legislative year began with surprises and ended with surprises in 2016. And once the surprises were over, it was business as usu-al, with the oil and gas industry once again wielding an outsize level of power in the Capitol Building. Nobody anticipated the giant methane gas leak at an un-derground gas storage facility in northern Los Angeles County that began in October 2015 and wasn’t finally stopped until Feb-ruary 2016. But the incident opened an unexpected chance to improve regulatory oversight of gas pipes and gas storage facili-ties. By early May—in the Capitol equivalent of lightning speed—the legislature had passed and the governor had signed emergency legislation, Senate Bill 380, by Senator Fran Pavley to address regulatory changes needed to protect the public—and the environment—from future leaks.
SB 32 and AB 197 Then, in August, a bill that appeared to have no life left, Senate Bill 32, was surprisingly reborn and the environment scored another big win. Pavley pushed Senate Bill 32 to codify goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and to make it clear that the California Legisla-ture’s commitment to addressing climate disruption remains firm. The Assembly’s Moderate Cau-cus killed the bill last year after heavy oil industry opposition surfaced. This year, Pavley joined her bill to a bill the more independent members of the Moderate Caucus found hard to resist, Assembly Bill 197 by Assembly member Eduardo Garcia. AB 197 opened the way for more involvement by the legislature in regulatory decision making on climate change. Because the two bills were joined, both needed to be signed into law before either could take effect. In essence, the two-bill package laid out to members that if they wanted more involve-ment in climate policy regulations, they would have to vote to continue effective climate policy. The package cleared the legislature on August 24, seven days before the legislature was set to adjourn. The passage was a great achievement worth celebrating. However, it also seemed to unleash the oil and gas in-dustry’s lobbyists.
Other Bills Torpedoed in the Final Week During the last week of the legislative session, the oil and gas industry torpedoed important environ-mental bills that previously seemed likely to pass. One of those was Senate Bill 1441 by Senator Mark Leno, a com-monsense bill that would have prohibited gas companies from charging ratepayers for gas that leaked before reaching customers. Another was SB 1387 by Senate Pro Tem Kevin de León, which would have added environmental justice representatives to the board of the air pollution control district in the Los Angeles air basin.
In This Issue
Surprising Wins, Unexpected Losses..1 Spotlight on Voting Practice…………...2 Governor’s Score Gives Incomplete Picture………………………………………….2 Report Card Bill Summaries…………...3 Assembly Report Card……………………4 Senate Report Card………….…………....6
SB 32, SB 1387, and SB 1441:
the votes on just these three
show a distinctive difference
among legislators
www.sierraclubcalifornia.org October 2016
Sierra Club California 2016 Legislative Report Card, Page 2
Spotlight on an As-sembly Voting Practice
One way to amuse oneself during the voting process at the leg-islature is to see how long it takes for some legislators to decide how to vote. On big bills that have been heavily lobbied by interests on op-posing sides, and that have drawn media attention, there’s often a group of legislators who wait until a bill clears the needed number of votes to pass or fail before they cast their vote. In the Assembly, legislators are allowed to add on or change their vote after a measure has passed and the voting has closed, as long as the change or addition doesn’t change the ultimate outcome for the measure. Once the additions or changes have been made, the vote is closed again, and that becomes the official record.
Climate Policy Votes Voting on Senate Bill 32, the main bill on climate policy this year, provides a glimpse into that uncom-fortable period of indecision. We were in the Capitol during the first vote and grabbed the outcome to compare to the final vote of record. On this scorecard, we have indicated with two asterisks those legislators who changed their vote after the first vote was closed. Most of these legislators moved from be-ing “not voting” to being “yes” votes. But two changed to a “no” vote, in-cluding Jim Cooper, a leader of the Moderate Caucus. If you’re wondering why your Assembly member changed votes after the first ballot, reach out to your legislator and ask. You can find a list of contact information on the Assembly’s website: http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers.
SB 32, SB 1387 and SB 1441 are all included in our scorecard. Like the others on our scorecard, they are bills that our volunteers and staff worked hard to see pass. They aren’t the only bills on which we took positions and lobbied. There were dozens of others. But taken together, the votes on just these three show a distinctive difference among legisla-tors, particularly between the group who received high marks and those legislators who failed to break into the 80s.
Gauge Your Legislator’s Performance We prepare this scorecard to help the public gauge their legislators’ performance on the environment. If you think your legislator did a good job or needs to do better, reach out and let that legislator know. Legislators are only as good on environmental issues as their constituents demand them to be.
(Cont, from front page)
Governor’s Signing Score Gives Incomplete Picture
This year, seven measures on our scorecard made it to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk. He signed all seven. Those seven measures were just a small sampling of more than 54 bills on which we took positions that made it to the governor’s desk. Of those 54, Brown disagreed with our position and vetoed or signed despite our recommenda-tions on six bills. That means overall, Brown and the Sierra Club agreed a whole lot more often than we disagreed on legisla-tion in 2016.
The Full Story But that doesn’t tell the full story. The environmen-tal, environmental justice, and labor communities had to fight Brown’s attempts to undercut the California Environ-mental Quality Act through legislative and budget packages in two key instances this year involving housing and toxic site cleanup. Additionally, the Brown Administration continues to push forward with efforts to build giant tunnels to deliver diminishing water resources from above the San Francisco Bay Delta to parts south. In light of the effects of climate change and the other investments the state needs to make itself to be more resilient, the tunnels increasingly look like a bad financial deal, just as it has long looked like a bad deal for the environment. Yet Brown persists. And the mess at the Coastal Commission, when forc-es appointed by the governor led efforts to remove the agen-cy’s executive director who had sparred with developers, proceeded without a peep from the governor. So the governor this year receives 100 percent on his performance on our scorecard. Off the scorecard, it’s another story.
Sierra Club California 2016 Legislative Report Card, Page 3
www.sierraclubcalifornia.org October 2016
AB 1066 (Gonzalez) Reverses a 78-year-old provision that exempted farm-workers from overtime pay requirements. SUPPORT: Signed AB 1550 (Gomez) Increases the investment of California’s climate pollu-tion funds in disadvantaged communities and directs a portion to projects that directly benefit low-income households and communities. SUPPORT: Signed AB 2243 (Wood) Would have established an excise tax for medical ma-rijuana to pay for law enforcement and remediation of environmental damage caused by marijuana culti-vation. SUPPORT: Failed in Senate Appropriations AB 2729 (Williams) Increases bonding levels to encourage plugging of idle oil and gas wells to reduce air and water pollution from idle wells. SUPPORT: Signed SB 32 (Pavley) Gives the California Air Resources Board (CARB) the authority to set statewide limits for greenhouse gas emission levels equivalent to 40% below the 1990 lev-el by 2030. SUPPORT: Signed SB 1000 (Leyva) Requires an environmental justice element be includ-ed in general plan updates to reduce disproportionate environmental and health impacts. SUPPORT: Signed SB 1190 (Jackson) Would have prevented ex parte, or private, communi-cations with Coastal Commissioners during decision
making on land use and other coastal issues. SUPPORT: Failed on Assembly Floor. SB 1239 (T. Gaines) Would have increased air pollution by eliminating Smog Check inspections for 1976 to 1980 model year vehicles that are insured as collector motor vehicles. OPPOSE: Failed on Senate Floor SB 1263 (Wieckowski) Helps prevent the creation of new, unsustainable wa-ter systems that cannot serve their customers. SUPPORT: Signed SB 1279 (Hancock) Prevents state funding from being used on projects designed to ship coal from California ports. SUPPORT: Signed SB 1282 (Leno) Would have required labeling of plants and seeds that contain neonicotinoid pesticides, indicating that they may harm bees. SUPPORT: Failed on Senate Floor SB 1387 (de León) Would have added three new environmental justice appointments to the South Coast Air Quality Manage-ment District’s board. SUPPORT: Failed on Assembly Floor SB 1441 (Leno) Would have forced gas utilities to fix methane leaks by disallowing charges to ratepayers for gas lost due to a leaky and poorly maintained distribution system. SUPPORT: Failed on Assembly Floor
2016 Bill Summaries
Sierra Club California policy advocates select the bills that appear on the scorecard. The selection is based on factors that include a bill’s overall importance to the state’s environmental quality, the precedent it sets for good or bad impacts, and the bill’s importance to fulfilling the Club’s mission. This year, we scored 11 bills on which the Assembly voted and 13 bills in the Senate. The two additional bills on the Senate side were SB 1282 and SB 1239, neither of which passed and therefore did not go on to the Assembly. AB 2243, passed out of the Assembly, did not make it through the Senate committee review process and therefore only the votes of the members who were part of the committee are counted here.
Now that you know the score, take action!
Tell your legislators you know the score. Call their district offices and thank them if they scored well, or express disappointment if they didn’t. Let them know you care about California’s environment. You can find phone numbers for legislators at www.senate.ca.gov or www.assembly.ca.gov.
You can find out who your representatives are at: findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.
Make your voice heard and take action on key legislation when the 2016 legislative session begins by watching for news at: www.sierraclubcalifornia.org.
Become a Sierra Club California member and keep up on the latest news at www.sierraclubcalifornia.org, where you can also sign up for activist updates.
Re
po
rt
Ca
rd
Le
ge
nd
an
d N
ote
s
mea
ns
pro
-en
vir
on
men
t v
ote
mea
ns
an
ti-e
nv
iro
nm
ent
vo
te
mea
ns
leg
isla
tor
wa
s p
rese
nt,
bu
t ch
ose
no
t to
ca
st a
vo
te i
n s
up
po
rt o
f a
pro
-en
vir
on
men
t b
ill
mea
ns
leg
isla
tor
wa
s p
rese
nt,
bu
t ch
ose
no
t to
ca
st a
vo
te o
n a
n a
nti
-en
vir
on
men
t b
ill
mea
ns
excu
sed
ab
sen
ce (
do
es n
ot
cou
nt
tow
ard
to
tal
sco
re)
mea
ns
leg
isla
tor
cha
ng
ed v
ote
aft
er f
irst
ba
llo
t
Sco
res
are
ba
sed
on
th
e n
um
ber
of
“+”
an
d “
NV
+”
vo
tes
cast
ver
sus
the
tota
l n
um
ber
of
po
ssib
le v
ote
s (e
xcu
sed
ab
sen
ces
do
no
t co
un
t a
ga
inst
a s
core
, b
ut
NV
– v
ote
s d
o).
+ -
NV
-
NV
+
E
**
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia
w
ww
.sie
rra
clu
bca
lifo
rnia
.org
20
16 L
egis
lati
ve
Rep
ort
Ca
rd,
Pa
ge
4
A
SS
EM
BL
Y
RE
PO
RT
CA
RD
V
OT
E
CO
UN
T
SC
OR
E
SU
PP
OR
TE
D M
EA
SU
RE
S
AB
10
66
F
arm
wo
rker
overt
ime
AB
15
50
G
reen
ho
use
gas
fu
nd
s
AB
22
43
M
arij
uana
tax
A
B 2
72
9
Idle
oil
&
gas
well
s
SB
32
C
lim
ate
chan
ge
go
als
SB
10
00
E
nv.
just
ice
in
gen p
lans
SB
1190
C
oas
tal
com
mis
-si
on
refo
rm
SB
1263
W
ater
syst
em
per
mit
tin
g
SB
1279
C
oal
fu
nds
SB
1387
E
nv.
just
ice
on
loca
l air
bo
ard
SB
1441
L
eaked
gas
char
ges
Ach
adjia
n, K
atch
o (
R-3
5)
2/1
1
18%
-
- +
+
-
- -
- -
- -
Ale
jo, L
uis
(D
-30
) 8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
NV
- N
V-
Alle
n, T
ravi
s (R
-72
) 0/1
1
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Ara
mb
ula
, Jo
aqu
in (
D-3
1)
8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
NV
- -
Atk
ins,
To
ni G
. (D
-78
) 10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
Bak
er,
Cat
har
ine
B. (
R-1
6)
4/1
1
36%
-
- -
+
+
- -
- +
-
+
Big
elo
w, F
ran
k (R
-05
)
0/1
1
0%
-
- N
V-
- -
- -
- -
- -
Blo
om
, Ric
har
d H
. (D
-50
)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
Bo
nill
a, S
usa
n (
D-1
4)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
Bo
nta
, Ro
b (
D-1
8)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
Bro
ugh
, Will
iam
P. (
R-7
3)
0/1
1
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Bro
wn
, Ch
ery
l R. (
D-4
7)
6/1
1
55%
+
+
+
+
+
**
NV
- -
NV
- +
-
NV
-
Bu
rke
, Au
tum
n R
. (D
-62
) 7/1
1
64%
+
+
+
+
+
**
NV
- N
V-
NV
- +
+
N
V-
Cal
de
ron
, Ian
C. (
D-5
7)
8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
NV
- N
V-
Cam
po
s, N
ora
(D
-27
) 8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
**
+
- +
+
-
NV
-
Ch
ang,
Lin
g-Li
ng
(R-5
5)
0/1
1
0%
-
- N
V-
NV
- -
- -
- -
- -
Ch
au, E
d (
D-4
9)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
Ch
áve
z, R
ock
y J.
(R
-76
) 1/1
1
9%
-
- +
-
-**
- -
- -
- -
Ch
iu, D
avid
S. (
D-1
7)
11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ch
u, K
anse
n (
D-2
5)
8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
NV
- +
N
V-
+
Co
ole
y, K
en
(D
-08
)
8/1
1
73%
-
+
+
+
+
+
- +
+
+
-
Co
op
er,
Jim
(D
-09
)
4/1
1
36%
-
+
+
+
-**
NV
- -
NV
- +
-
NV
-
Dab
abn
eh
, Mat
thew
M. (
D-4
5)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
- +
Dah
le, B
rian
(R
-01
)
2/1
1
18%
-
+
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
Dal
y, T
om
F. (
D-6
9)
4/1
1
36%
+
+
+
+
N
V-
NV
- -
NV
- N
V-
- -
Do
dd
, Bill
(D
-04
)
8/1
1
73%
-
+
+
+
+
+
- +
+
+
N
V-
Eggm
an, S
usa
n T
alam
ante
s (D
-13
)
9/1
1
82%
N
V-
+
+
+
+*
*
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
Fraz
ier,
Jim
L.,
Jr.
(D
-11
)
4/1
1
36%
-
NV
- +
+
-
+
- -
+
NV
- -
Gai
ne
s, B
eth
(R
-06
)
0/1
1
0%
-
- N
V-
- -
- -
- -
- -
Gal
lagh
er,
Jam
es M
. (R
-03
)
2/1
1
18%
-
+
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
Gar
cia,
Cri
stin
a (D
-58
)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
NV
-
Gar
cia,
Ed
uar
do
(D
-56
)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
NV
- +
Gat
to, M
ike
(D
-43
)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
Gip
son
, Mik
e A
. (D
-64
)
7/1
1
64%
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
- +
+
N
V-
NV
-
Go
me
z, J
imm
y (D
-51
)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
NV
-
Go
nza
lez,
Lo
ren
a S.
(D
-80
)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
AS
SE
MB
LY
R
EP
OR
T C
AR
D
VO
TE
C
OU
NT
S
CO
RE
SU
PP
OR
TE
D M
EA
SU
RE
S
AB
10
66
F
arm
wo
rker
overt
ime
AB
15
50
G
reen
ho
use
gas
fu
nd
s
AB
22
43
M
arij
uana
tax
A
B 2
72
9
Idle
oil
& g
as
wel
ls
SB
32
C
lim
ate
chan
ge
go
als
go
als
SB
1000
E
nv.
just
ice
in
gen p
lans
SB
1190
C
oas
tal
com
mis
-si
on
refo
rm
SB
1263
W
ater
syst
em
per
mit
tin
g
SB
1279
C
oal
fu
nds
SB
1387
E
nv.
just
ice
on
loca
l air
bo
ard
SB
1441
L
eaked
gas
char
ges
Go
rdo
n, R
ich
ard
S. (
D-2
4)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
Gra
y, A
dam
C. (
D-2
1)
3/7
43%
-
E
+
+
- E
E
+
-
E
-
Gro
ve, S
han
no
n L
. (R
-34
) 0/1
1
0%
-
NV
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Had
ley,
Dav
id (
R-6
6)
3/1
1
27%
-
- +
+
-
- -
- +
-
NV
-
Har
pe
r, M
atth
ew (
R-7
4)
0/1
1
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
He
rnán
de
z, R
oge
r (D
-48
) 9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
**
+
- +
+
N
V-
+
Ho
lde
n, C
hri
s R
. (D
-41
) 9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
NV
- +
Irw
in, J
acq
ui V
. (D
-44
) 10/1
1
91%
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Jon
es,
Bri
an W
. (R
-71
) 0/1
1
0%
-
- N
V-
- -
- -
- -
- -
Jon
es-
Saw
yer,
Reg
inal
d B
., S
r. (
D-5
9)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
Kim
, Yo
un
g O
. (R
-65
) 0/1
1
0%
-
- N
V-
NV
- -
- -
- -
- -
Lack
ey,
To
m W
. (R
-36
) 1/1
1
9%
-
- -
+
- -
- -
- -
-
Levi
ne
, Mar
c B
. (D
-10
) 10/1
1
91%
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Lin
de
r, E
ric
F. (
R-6
0)
2/1
1
18%
+
N
V-
- +
-
- -
- -
- -
Lóp
ez,
Pat
ty (
D-3
9)
11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Low
, Eva
n (
D-2
8)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
NV
-
Mai
en
sch
ein
, Bri
an (
R-7
7)
2/1
1
18%
-
- +
+
-
- -
- -
- -
Mat
his
, Dev
on
J. (
R-2
6)
2/1
1
18%
-
+
- +
-
- -
- -
- -
May
es,
Ch
ad J
. (R
-42
) 1/1
1
9%
-
- +
-
- -
- -
- -
-
McC
arty
, Ke
vin
(D
-07
) 11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Me
din
a, J
ose
(D
-61
) 8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
- -
Me
len
dez
, Me
lissa
A. (
R-6
7)
0/1
0
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- E
-
NV
-
Mu
llin
, Ke
vin
(D
-22
) 9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
NV
- +
Naz
aria
n, A
dri
n (
D-4
6)
11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ob
ern
olt
e, J
ay P
. (R
-33
) 0/1
1
0%
-
- N
V-
- -
- -
- -
- -
O’D
on
ne
ll, P
atri
ck (
D-7
0)
7/1
1
64%
+
+
+
+
+
**
+
+
NV
- N
V-
NV
- N
V-
Ols
en
, Kri
stin
M. (
R-1
2)
1/1
1
9%
-
NV
- +
-
- -
- -
- -
-
Pat
ters
on
, Jim
(R
-23
) 1/1
1
9%
-
- +
-
- -
- -
- -
-
Qu
irk,
Bill
(D
-20
) 9/1
1
82%
+
+
-
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
+
Re
nd
on
, An
tho
ny,
Ph
.D. (
D-6
3)
11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Rid
ley-
Tho
mas
, Se
bas
tian
(D
-54
) 8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
NV
- +
+
-
Ro
dri
gue
z, F
red
die
(D
-52
) 8/1
1
73%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
- N
V-
Sala
s, R
ud
y, J
r. (
D-3
2)
6/1
1
55%
+
+
+
+
-
+
- -
+
- -
San
tiag
o, M
igu
el (
D-5
3)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
NV
-
Ste
ino
rth
, Mar
c (R
-40
) 0/1
1
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Sto
ne
, Mar
k (D
-29
) 11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Thu
rmo
nd
, To
ny
(D-1
5)
10/1
1
91%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
Tin
g, P
hili
p Y
. (D
-19
) 10/1
1
91%
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Wag
ne
r, D
on
ald
P. (
R-6
8)
1/1
1
9%
-
- N
V-
+
- -
- -
- -
-
Wal
dro
n, M
arie
(R
-75
) 0/1
1
0%
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
We
be
r, S
hir
ley
N. (
D-7
9)
9/1
1
82%
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
NV
- +
Wilk
, Sco
tt T
. (R
-38
) 2/1
1
18%
-
- +
+
-
- -
- -
- -
Will
iam
s, D
as G
. (D
-37
) 11/1
1
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Wo
od
, Jim
(D
-02
) 9/1
1
82%
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
-
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia
w
ww
.sie
rra
clu
bca
lifo
rnia
.org
20
16 L
egis
lati
ve
Rep
ort
Ca
rd,
Pa
ge
5
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia
w
ww
.sie
rra
clu
bca
lifo
rnia
.org
20
16 L
egis
lati
ve
Rep
ort
Ca
rd,
Pa
ge
6
SE
NA
TE
R
EP
OR
T C
AR
D
VO
TE
C
OU
NT
S
CO
RE
SU
PP
OR
TE
D M
EA
SU
RE
S
O
PP
OS
ED
AB
1066
F
arm
wo
rker
overt
ime
AB
15
50
G
reen
ho
use
gas
fu
nd
s
AB
22
43
M
arij
uana
tax
AB
27
29
Id
le o
il &
gas
well
s
SB
32
C
lim
ate
chan
ge
go
als
go
als
SB
10
00
E
nv.
just
ice
in
gen p
lans
SB
11
90
C
oas
tal
com
-m
issi
on
refo
rm
SB
1263
W
ater
syst
em
per
mit
tin
g
SB
1279
C
oal
fu
nds
SB
1282
B
ee-k
illi
ng
pes
tici
des
SB
1387
E
nv.
just
ice
on
loca
l air
bo
ard
SB
1441
L
eaked
gas
ch
arges
SB
1239
S
mo
g
exem
pti
on
Alle
n, B
enja
min
(D
-26
) 12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
An
der
son
, Jo
el (
R-3
8)
1/1
2
8%
-
-
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Bat
es,
Pat
rici
a C
. (R
-36
) 1/1
2
8%
-
-
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Be
all,
Jim
(D
-15
) 13/1
3
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Be
rryh
ill, T
om
(R
-08
) 0/1
2
0%
-
-
NV
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Blo
ck, M
arty
(D
-39
) 12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Can
ne
lla, A
nth
on
y J.
(R
-12
) 2/1
2
17%
-
NV
-
+
- -
- -
- -
- +
-
de
Le
ón
, Ke
vin
(D
-24
) 12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Fulle
r, J
ean
(R
-16
) 1/1
2
8%
-
-
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Gai
ne
s, T
ed (
R-0
1)
0/1
2
0%
-
-
NV
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Gal
gian
i, C
ath
lee
n (
D-0
5)
5/1
2
42%
N
V-
+
+
N
V-
+
NV
- N
V-
+
- N
V-
+
-
Gla
zer,
Ste
ven
M. (
D-0
7)
8/1
2
67%
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
- N
V-
+
+
Hal
l, Is
ado
re, I
II (
D-3
5)
12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Han
cock
, Lo
ni (
D-0
9)
12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
He
rnan
de
z, E
d, O
.D. (
D-2
2)
11/1
3
85%
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V-
+
+
NV
- +
+
N
V+
He
rtzb
erg
, Ro
ber
t M
. (D
-18
) 13/1
3
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
N
V+
Hill
, Je
rry
(D-1
3)
12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Hu
eso
, Be
n (
D-4
0)
7/1
1
64%
+
+
E
+
+
NV
- -
+
NV
- +
+
-
Hu
ff, B
ob
(R
-29
) 1/1
2
8%
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
+
-
Jack
son
, Han
nah
-Be
th (
D-1
9)
11/1
2
92%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
Lara
, Ric
ard
o (
D-3
3)
11/1
3
85%
+
+
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
Len
o, M
ark
(D-1
1)
12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Leyv
a, C
on
nie
M. (
D-2
0)
11/1
2
92%
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Liu
, Car
ol (
D-2
5)
11/1
2
92%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
McG
uir
e, M
ike
(D
-02
) 11/1
2
92%
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Me
nd
oza
, To
ny
(D-3
2)
10/1
2
83%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
-
Mit
che
ll, H
olly
J. (
D-3
0)
11/1
2
92%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
Mo
nn
ing,
Will
iam
W. (
D-1
7)
11/1
2
92%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
- +
+
+
Mo
orl
ach
, Jo
hn
M.W
. (R
-37
) 1/1
3
8%
-
- +
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Mo
rre
ll, M
ike
L. (
R-2
3)
1/1
2
8%
-
-
+
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
Ngu
yen
, Jan
et
(R-3
4)
0/1
3
0%
-
- -
- -
- N
V-
- -
- -
- -
Nie
lse
n, J
im W
. (R
-04
) 0/1
2
0%
-
-
- -
NV
- -
- -
- -
- -
Pan
, Ric
har
d, M
.D. (
D-0
6)
11/1
2
92%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
- +
+
+
Pav
ley,
Fra
n (
D-2
7)
12/1
3
92%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
Ro
th, R
ich
ard
D. (
D-3
1)
8/1
2
67%
N
V-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
NV
- +
-
Sto
ne
, Je
ff E
. (R
-28
) 0/1
2
0%
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Vid
ak, A
nd
y (R
-14
) 0/1
2
0%
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Wie
cko
wsk
i, B
ob
(D
-10
) 12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Wo
lk, L
ois
(D
-03
) 12/1
2
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NV
+
Vac
ant
(SD
21
)
Sie
rra
Clu
b C
ali
forn
ia,
fou
nd
ed i
n 1
98
6,
is t
he
leg
isla
tiv
e a
nd
reg
ula
tory
ad
vo
cacy
arm
of
the
Sie
rra
Clu
b’s
13
Ca
lifo
rnia
ch
ap
ters
. T
his
rep
ort
wa
s d
evel
op
ed b
y S
ierr
a C
lub
Ca
lifo
rnia
Dir
ecto
r K
ath
ryn
Ph
illi
ps,
Po
licy
Ad
vo
cate
s E
dw
ard
Mo
ren
o,
Ky
le J
on
es,
an
d D
ian
a V
azq
uez
, O
per
ati
on
s st
aff
Meg
Gu
nd
erso
n a
nd
Ger
ald
ine
Vil
lan
uev
a,
an
d I
nte
rns
Ga
bri
elle
Fu
erst
an
d D
an
iel
Ba
rad
.
