Bill to create wildfire mitigation fund headed to the governor’s desk

When Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a multibillion-dollar wildfire mitigation fund last month, critics said his goal of passing a bill before the Legislature left for summer recess July 12 was unrealistic. But the Assembly passed AB 1054 by a 63-8 vote Thursday, beating Newsom’s deadline by a day.

Much of the goal of the $21 billion fund is to eliminate uncertainty around utility company finances to ward off downgrade threats from ratings agencies. The possibility that a new catastrophic fire could take place before the Legislature returns on Aug. 12 was apparently sufficient incentive to pass a bill that even some supporters said they weren’t completely comfortable with.

“No one has ever said this was a perfect bill,” said Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, one of three co-authors of AB 1054.

Some lawmakers said far worse, specifically regarding Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

“It’s hard not to see this bill as something of a reward for monstrous behavior,” said Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin.

“Considerable effort and good intentions do not necessarily lead to sound policy, when a principal beneficiary of that policy has an egregiously bad record on public safety,” added Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County.

The cost of the fund will be split between utilities and the state. The bill also puts numerous requirements on utilities that want to benefit from the fund. This includes a demand that PG&E “exits bankruptcy” by June 30, 2020.

The fund didn’t even make it into bill form until June 27, when thousands of words were added to a placeholder bill that the Assembly advanced earlier in the spring for that purpose. It was amended just once since then, on July 5, complying with a requirement that bill language be in print at least three days before a vote.

Several lawmakers also brought up other ideas they wished had been included, ranging from greater fire insurance requirements on homeowners to changing the state’s inverse condemnation standard, which makes utilities liable for fires caused by their equipment even if they were not negligent.

In earlier debates, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said the bill makes it harder to create public power companies and urged that a fund include a more complete overhaul of the state’s utility system. But none of these objections carried the day.

“I believe that AB 1054 creates the conditions and the standards to stabilize California and to change the behavior of PG&E,” Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes, D-Grand Terrace. “That is why in spite of my reservations about this proposal, I believe that failing to act today may be worse than the status quo.”

Numerous other bills are also headed to Newsom’s desk after marathon legislative sessions this week. One of the most notable for attorneys is SB 41, which bans discrimination in civil awards based on race and gender.

Sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California, it takes aim at the longstanding issue of courts awarding more in accidental death and injury cases involving higher income white men than other groups because of their historically higher lifetime income potential. The Senate unanimously approved Assembly amendments that clarified some of the bill’s terms.

The state Senate also approved a more controversial measure. SB 27 requires presidential candidates publicly release their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot in California.

The bill is squarely aimed at President Donald Trump. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who declined to release his own tax returns, vetoed a similar measure in 2017. In his veto message for SB 149, he said he feared an “ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.”

Newsom is widely expected to sign the measure, but the matter will almost certainly end up in court. Republicans in the Legislature and elsewhere have pointed to case law they say strictly limits state requirements on federal elections, including Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).