ARTICLE
The California Legislature is in the last days of the first session of the 2017-2018 Legislature. In the frenzy days and hours of the session, our legislators have a unique way of closing the deal on special interest legislation. This back room deal in Sacramento is infamously known as the ‘gut and amend’ process. Let me provide a snap shot definition for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this process. In the beginning of each legislative session, the Legislature sets guidelines on the number of bills that can be introduced, deadlines, and committee of origins where the legislation is assigned for a thorough public process. An example: A bill (AB 103) is introduced by our assembly member, the purpose of which is to create an early education/child care program for our youth. The legislation is assigned to the Assembly Education Committee and then moves through the state assembly where it receives approval by the Assembly and then is moved to the California State Senate for consideration. There the bill magically sits waiting for action — not for lack of support, but there is a competing legislation that receives interest first. But the bill is still on the active list for consideration. Then out of the blue, another Assembly member decides he/she has a better idea for the bill. He/she wants to change the very make-up of the legislation to a completely different use (public utilities) so as a ranking member of that committee, the bill is ‘gutted and amended' with new language. So the intent of one member’s legislation is now under consideration in another form. Last November, the people of California voted to limit these types of back room deals with the passage of California Legislative Transparency Act. Prop 54, approved in 2016, requires the Legislature to distribute and post online legislation in its final form for at least 72 hours before a final floor vote by either house, to post online a video recording of every legislative meeting that is supposed to be open to the public, and to allow all individuals to create and share their own recordings of legislative proceedings. Why is this important? Just this past week, this ‘gut and amend’ process was used which can jeopardize the launch of Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP). State Assembly member Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) decided that there needs to be a change in the renewable public utilities regulations (please read the Santa Cruz Sentinel article that speaks to this practice). Sentinel: last-minute-legislation-could-pull-plug-on-monterey-bay-community-power AB 813 and 726 were heavily amended Friday evening to include provisions that advocates for MBCP say would freeze new community power projects by forcing local providers to purchase renewable energy through major, investor-owned utilities. The bills would mandate that the big utility companies’ green energy costs be shared by consumers who had left in favor of locally owned alternatives. This action would literally put Monterey Bay Community Power on hold. This state legislative action did not consider the Monterey Bay community’s interest in providing local renewable energy options. When the state government reacts against the community's best interest, we all should respond. I personally reached out to renewable energy advocates across California to ask them to say NO to this back room deal. We succeeded in delaying this legislation until next year. Please reach out to our State Legislators and remind them to support local policy priorities. Their contact information is below. Senator Bill Monning (916) 651-4017 Sacramento (831) 425-0401 Santa Cruz Email Contact Page Assemblymember Anna Caballero (831) 761-7428 Watsonville (916) 319-2030 Sacramento E-mail Contact page Assemblymember Mark Stone (916) 319-2029 Sacramento (831) 425-1503 Santa Cruz E-mail Contact Page
The California Legislature is in the last days of the first session of the 2017-2018 Legislature. In the frenzy days and hours of the session, our legislators have a unique way of closing the deal on special interest legislation. This back room deal in Sacramento is infamously known as the ‘gut and amend’ process. Let me provide a snap shot definition for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this process.
In the beginning of each legislative session, the Legislature sets guidelines on the number of bills that can be introduced, deadlines, and committee of origins where the legislation is assigned for a thorough public process. An example: A bill (AB 103) is introduced by our assembly member, the purpose of which is to create an early education/child care program for our youth. The legislation is assigned to the Assembly Education Committee and then moves through the state assembly where it receives approval by the Assembly and then is moved to the California State Senate for consideration. There the bill magically sits waiting for action — not for lack of support, but there is a competing legislation that receives interest first. But the bill is still on the active list for consideration.
Then out of the blue, another Assembly member decides he/she has a better idea for the bill. He/she wants to change the very make-up of the legislation to a completely different use (public utilities) so as a ranking member of that committee, the bill is ‘gutted and amended' with new language. So the intent of one member’s legislation is now under consideration in another form.
Last November, the people of California voted to limit these types of back room deals with the passage of California Legislative Transparency Act. Prop 54, approved in 2016, requires the Legislature to distribute and post online legislation in its final form for at least 72 hours before a final floor vote by either house, to post online a video recording of every legislative meeting that is supposed to be open to the public, and to allow all individuals to create and share their own recordings of legislative proceedings.
Why is this important? Just this past week, this ‘gut and amend’ process was used which can jeopardize the launch of Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP). State Assembly member Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) decided that there needs to be a change in the renewable public utilities regulations (please read the Santa Cruz Sentinel article that speaks to this practice).
Sentinel: last-minute-legislation-could-pull-plug-on-monterey-bay-community-power
AB 813 and 726 were heavily amended Friday evening to include provisions that advocates for MBCP say would freeze new community power projects by forcing local providers to purchase renewable energy through major, investor-owned utilities. The bills would mandate that the big utility companies’ green energy costs be shared by consumers who had left in favor of locally owned alternatives.
This action would literally put Monterey Bay Community Power on hold. This state legislative action did not consider the Monterey Bay community’s interest in providing local renewable energy options. When the state government reacts against the community's best interest, we all should respond. I personally reached out to renewable energy advocates across California to ask them to say NO to this back room deal. We succeeded in delaying this legislation until next year. Please reach out to our State Legislators and remind them to support local policy priorities. Their contact information is below.
Senator Bill Monning (916) 651-4017 Sacramento (831) 425-0401 Santa Cruz Email Contact Page
Assemblymember Anna Caballero (831) 761-7428 Watsonville (916) 319-2030 Sacramento E-mail Contact page
Assemblymember Mark Stone (916) 319-2029 Sacramento (831) 425-1503 Santa Cruz E-mail Contact Page