CA gas prices session moves to Senate

On Aug. 31, when Gov. Gavin Newsom called a special session on gas prices, California motorists were paying $4.61 per gallon on average, $1.27 more than the national average.

On Monday, when the state Senate finally convened, prices were $4.68 in California, or $1.51 above the national average. 

In between, there has been plenty of political posturing among the governor, Assembly leaders and Senate leadership, and between them and Republicans, plus a back and forth with the oil industry.

CalMatters’ Alexei Koseff reports:

This is not where Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire wanted to be.

Lawmakers are normally home in their districts in October, performing constituent services or running for reelection — not stuck in Sacramento weighing how to prevent gasoline price spikes.

When Newsom, after failing to jam his proposal through the Legislature at the end of the regular session in August, called the special session instead, McGuire refused to go along, insisting that his members had been ready to act before the deadline.

The Healdsburg Democrat lost that battle. After the Assembly returned to the Capitol and advanced a pair of measures on fuel supply last week, McGuire announced that he would convene the Senate for a special session after all.

With the ball now in his court, however, McGuire has found a way to reassert some control. As the session kicked off on Monday, he shelved Assembly Bill X2-9, a secondary measure passed by the Assembly last week that would have directed the state to study increasing the ethanol blend in gasoline and other strategies for expanding supply.

McGuire, in a statement: “While the goals of this legislation are laudable, and we’re grateful to the Assemblymember’s leadership, a more thorough analysis and additional work is needed on the proposal.”

Instead, McGuire said, the Senate will only consider ABX2-1, which would require oil refineries to maintain additional inventory that they can draw from during maintenance periods to sustain a steady supply for drivers. This is the proposal that Newsom has been pushing for — and essentially the bill that the Senate was prepared to adopt in August.

“We’re ready to move quickly this week,” McGuire said.

A vote on the bill, which cleared its first committee on Monday, is scheduled for Friday.

November election ballots are arriving in mailboxes across California, so let’s get an update on some key measures:

Proposition 35: Health providers and both the California Democratic and Republican parties may be backing Prop. 35, but critics of the measure warn it could backfire, writes CalMatters health reporter Kristen Hwang.

Prop. 35 calls for locking in tax revenue that the state receives from managed health care insurance plans to pay more to doctors who treat low-income Medi-Cal patients. Opponents — who include a small coalition of community health and good governance advocates — argue it could lead to the state losing billions in federal funding. 

That’s because the tax exploits a loophole in federal regulations, and if the feds close it, the state could be forced to reduce taxes on the Medi-Cal plans. 

Learn more about Prop. 35 in Kristen’s story.

Measure A: To fund major homelessness projects, Los Angeles County voters will decide whether to replace a quarter-cent sales tax (in place since 2017) with a half-cent sales tax. As CalMatters homelessness reporter Marisa Kendall explains, if passed, Measure A is expected to raise more than $1 billion a year for shelters, housing and other homelessness services. But if it isn’t, the 2017 tax will expire in 2027. 

This has officials and service providers worried: They say that money has helped move more than 42,000 people into permanent housing and predict that without it, unsheltered homelessness could increase by 28%, or roughly 15,000 people. But critics argue that increasing taxes in a region that already has some of California’s highest tax rates is the wrong approach to fixing homelessness.

To learn more about Measure A, read Marisa’s story, and register for a live CalMatters event at noon Wednesday at Studio MLA.

From CalMatters Capitol reporter Jeanne Kuang:

California is citing a farm labor contractor over alleged violations of workplace safety rules after several workers said they were fired for leaving the job early during a summer heat wave. 

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health announced Monday it has fined Ruiz Farm Labor more than $17,500, alleging the contractor failed to protect workers when it got hotter than 95 degrees, and did not train supervisors and employees to prevent heat illness. 

Workers reported the contractor to the agency in June. As CalMatters reported, they said owner Conrad Ruiz fired them the day after they left a tomato field near Dixon mid-shift because some of them felt ill. The region was experiencing a triple-digit heat wave that week.

The citations were issued in late August; it’s unclear why Cal/OSHA waited more than a month to announce them. Ruiz in September appealed the citations, and in a phone interview with CalMatters denied the allegations. 

He said he followed all the state rules, which require employers of outdoor workers to provide water, shade and rest breaks, and take even more precautions when it’s hotter than 95 degrees. Ruiz accused Cal/OSHA of “trying to find things” wrong with his business.

Ruiz: “I’m doing all my part to make sure these people are safe, their well-being taken care of. I know they’re trying to pass a bill and they’re getting on OSHA. They’re trying to use some kind of example, trying to find something with me.”

(A bill pushed by workers’ advocates to strengthen compliance with the heat rules was vetoed by Gov. Newsom last month.)

Ruiz also repeated that he had not fired the farmworkers in retaliation for their heat complaints, but laid them off. The workers have said they believed they were being retaliated against because other employees who had not left during the heat were allowed to stay on the job the next day. 

Those claims are still being investigated by the state’s Labor Commissioner’s Office, and by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

For many fishers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay and the rivers that flow into it provide catfish, bass and other vital parts of their daily diet. But the vast Bay-Delta watershed is so contaminated that the feds are investigating whether California is discriminating against the tribes and immigrants who rely on it, writes CalMatters water reporter Rachel Becker.

The Bay-Delta is plagued with algal blooms, urban and farm runoff and mercury contamination. Since last year, the California State Water Resources Control Board has been under investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after tribes and environmental justice groups filed a complaint accusing the board of failing to “uphold its statutory duty” to oversee the Bay-Delta’s water quality and allowing it to “descend into ecological crisis.” 

About 377,000 people from the Bay Area and Delta region are licensed to fish in California. A 2010 UC Davis study found that African American, Lao and Vietnamese anglers who fish in the Delta ingest excessive amounts of mercury — a harmful contaminant that can contribute to developmental issues in children.

Jesse Galvan, a member of the California Valley Miwok tribe: “It’s not good quality water. You just think about that before you want to eat that fish. It’s a sad thing. I remember when I was a kid, we would eat a bunch of fish out of the Delta. Now, not as much.”

The water agency for the San Francisco Bay plans to conduct a survey to see what fish need stricter protections for human consumption. But officials say there isn’t much they can do.

Learn more about the Bay-Delta in Rachel’s story.