AB 1012 - An Act to Amend Sections 2069 and 2099 Of, and to Add Section 2840 To, the Fish and Game Code, and to Amend Section 25524 Of, to Add Section 25619 To, and to Add and Repeal Sections 21081.8 and 21097.5 Of, the Public Resources Code, Relating to Renewable Energy Resources, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.

Energy: renewable resources: endangered species: environmental impact reports. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
(1)The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and requires the Department of Fish and Game to recommend, and the commission to adopt, criteria for determining if a species is endangered or threatened. CESA authorizes the department to authorize the take of threatened species,… More
(1)The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and requires the Department of Fish and Game to recommend, and the commission to adopt, criteria for determining if a species is endangered or threatened. CESA authorizes the department to authorize the take of threatened species, endangered species, or candidate species by permit if certain requirements are met. CESA authorizes the department, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) and, to the extent practicable, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to design and implement actions to protect, restore, or enhance the habitat of plants and wildlife that can be used to fully mitigate the impacts of the take of endangered, threatened, or candidate species (mitigation actions) resulting from certain solar thermal and photovoltaic powerplants in the planning area of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.This bill additionally would authorize the department to design and implement these mitigation actions for proposed wind and geothermal powerplants in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.(2)Existing law requires the department to collect, and requires the owner or developer of an eligible project to pay, a one-time permit application fee of $75,000. Existing law requires the department to utilize the permit application fee to pay for all or a portion of the department’s cost of processing incidental take permit applications pursuant to CESA.Existing law establishes the Renewable Energy Resources Development Fee Trust Fund as a continuously appropriated fund in the State Treasury to serve, and be managed, as an optional, voluntary method for developers or owners of eligible projects, as defined, to deposit fees sufficient to complete mitigation actions established by the department and thereby meet their requirements pursuant to CESA or the certification authority of the Energy Commission. The definition of eligible projects for purposes of these provisions and fees is limited to certain solar thermal powerplants and photovoltaic powerplants proposed to be constructed in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

This bill would expand the definition of eligible projects to include wind and geothermal powerplants proposed to be constructed in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. By expanding the purposes for which moneys in this continuously appropriated fund may be used, this bill would make an appropriation.

(3)The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act authorizes the Department of Fish and Game to enter into agreements with any person or public entity for the purpose of preparing a natural community conservation plan, in cooperation with a local agency that has land use permit authority over the activities proposed to be addressed in the plan, to provide comprehensive management and conservation of multiple wildlife species.

This bill would require the department to enter into one or more planning agreements with appropriate plan participants, including, but not limited to, the Energy Commission, one or more counties within the San Joaquin Valley, as defined, and other persons or public entities for the purpose of preparing one or more natural community conservation plans, if certain conditions are met with regard to the plan and the parties to the planning agreement.

(4) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill, until January 1, 2014, would not require an EIR to analyze, or mitigate, where feasible, the environmental effect for an eligible renewable energy resource, including greenhouse gas emissions, not found to be significant under CEQA.

The bill would authorize an applicant for a project to construct an eligible renewable energy resource that has an approved electricity purchase agreement to provide information to the lead agency regarding the environmental benefits of the project when comments may be received by the lead agency on a draft environmental impact report or negative declaration. The bill would authorize the lead agency to consider this information when making a finding under CEQA. The bill would repeal this exemption on January 1, 2014.

(5)The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission), and requires it to certify sufficient sites and related facilities that are required to provide a supply of electricity sufficient to accommodate projected demand for power statewide. The act grants the Energy Commission the exclusive authority to certify any stationary or floating electrical generating facility using any source of thermal energy, with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts or more, and any facilities appurtenant thereto.

Existing law requires the Energy Commission to establish a process for certain applicants for certification of a solar thermal powerplant that is proposed to be constructed in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as defined, that allows the applicant to elect to pay additional fees to be used by the Energy Commission to contract with 3rd parties to assist the Energy Commission staff in performing the analysis otherwise performed by staff in determining whether or not to issue a certification.

This bill would expand this process to any eligible renewable energy resource.

The bill would require the Energy Commission , upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide $7,000,000 in grants to qualified counties for the development or revision of rules and policies, including general plan elements, zoning ordinances, and a natural community conservation plan as a plan participant, to facilitate the development of eligible renewable energy resources, and their associated electric transmission facilities, on disturbed lands, as defined. The bill would require a general plan element or zoning ordinance that is adopted or revised pursuant to a grant to be completed within 2 years of receipt of the grant and be consistent with the conservation strategies of any natural community conservation plan, if one had been approved or is under development in the county.

(6)This bill would provide that it would be operative only if SB 722 of the 2009–10 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2011. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by the Senate on September 1, 2010. 
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on September 1, 2009.

voted YES: 33 voted NO: 0
7 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 2069 and 2099 Of, and to Add Section 2840 To, the Fish and Game Code, and to Amend Section 25524 Of, to Add Section 25619 To, and to Add and Repeal Sections 21081.8 and 21097.5 Of, the Public Resources Code, Relating to Renewable Energy Resources, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.

AB 1012 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
(1)The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and requires the Department of Fish and Game to recommend, and the commission to adopt, criteria for determining if a species is endangered or threatened. CESA authorizes the department to authorize the take of threatened species, endangered species, or candidate species by permit if certain requirements are met. CESA authorizes the department, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) and, to the extent practicable, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to design and implement actions to protect, restore, or enhance the habitat of plants and wildlife that can be used to fully mitigate the impacts of the take of endangered, threatened, or candidate species (mitigation actions) resulting from certain solar thermal and photovoltaic powerplants in the planning area of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.This bill additionally would authorize the department to design and implement these… More
(1)The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and requires the Department of Fish and Game to recommend, and the commission to adopt, criteria for determining if a species is endangered or threatened. CESA authorizes the department to authorize the take of threatened species, endangered species, or candidate species by permit if certain requirements are met. CESA authorizes the department, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) and, to the extent practicable, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management, to design and implement actions to protect, restore, or enhance the habitat of plants and wildlife that can be used to fully mitigate the impacts of the take of endangered, threatened, or candidate species (mitigation actions) resulting from certain solar thermal and photovoltaic powerplants in the planning area of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.This bill additionally would authorize the department to design and implement these mitigation actions for proposed wind and geothermal powerplants in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.(2)Existing law requires the department to collect, and requires the owner or developer of an eligible project to pay, a one-time permit application fee of $75,000. Existing law requires the department to utilize the permit application fee to pay for all or a portion of the department’s cost of processing incidental take permit applications pursuant to CESA.Existing law establishes the Renewable Energy Resources Development Fee Trust Fund as a continuously appropriated fund in the State Treasury to serve, and be managed, as an optional, voluntary method for developers or owners of eligible projects, as defined, to deposit fees sufficient to complete mitigation actions established by the department and thereby meet their requirements pursuant to CESA or the certification authority of the Energy Commission. The definition of eligible projects for purposes of these provisions and fees is limited to certain solar thermal powerplants and photovoltaic powerplants proposed to be constructed in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

This bill would expand the definition of eligible projects to include wind and geothermal powerplants proposed to be constructed in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. By expanding the purposes for which moneys in this continuously appropriated fund may be used, this bill would make an appropriation.

(3)The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act authorizes the Department of Fish and Game to enter into agreements with any person or public entity for the purpose of preparing a natural community conservation plan, in cooperation with a local agency that has land use permit authority over the activities proposed to be addressed in the plan, to provide comprehensive management and conservation of multiple wildlife species.

This bill would require the department to enter into one or more planning agreements with appropriate plan participants, including, but not limited to, the Energy Commission, one or more counties within the San Joaquin Valley, as defined, and other persons or public entities for the purpose of preparing one or more natural community conservation plans, if certain conditions are met with regard to the plan and the parties to the planning agreement.

(4) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill, until January 1, 2014, would not require an EIR to analyze, or mitigate, where feasible, the environmental effect for an eligible renewable energy resource, including greenhouse gas emissions, not found to be significant under CEQA.

The bill would authorize an applicant for a project to construct an eligible renewable energy resource that has an approved electricity purchase agreement to provide information to the lead agency regarding the environmental benefits of the project when comments may be received by the lead agency on a draft environmental impact report or negative declaration. The bill would authorize the lead agency to consider this information when making a finding under CEQA. The bill would repeal this exemption on January 1, 2014.

(5)The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission), and requires it to certify sufficient sites and related facilities that are required to provide a supply of electricity sufficient to accommodate projected demand for power statewide. The act grants the Energy Commission the exclusive authority to certify any stationary or floating electrical generating facility using any source of thermal energy, with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts or more, and any facilities appurtenant thereto.

Existing law requires the Energy Commission to establish a process for certain applicants for certification of a solar thermal powerplant that is proposed to be constructed in the planning area subject to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as defined, that allows the applicant to elect to pay additional fees to be used by the Energy Commission to contract with 3rd parties to assist the Energy Commission staff in performing the analysis otherwise performed by staff in determining whether or not to issue a certification.

This bill would expand this process to any eligible renewable energy resource.

The bill would require the Energy Commission , upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide $7,000,000 in grants to qualified counties for the development or revision of rules and policies, including general plan elements, zoning ordinances, and a natural community conservation plan as a plan participant, to facilitate the development of eligible renewable energy resources, and their associated electric transmission facilities, on disturbed lands, as defined. The bill would require a general plan element or zoning ordinance that is adopted or revised pursuant to a grant to be completed within 2 years of receipt of the grant and be consistent with the conservation strategies of any natural community conservation plan, if one had been approved or is under development in the county.

(6)This bill would provide that it would be operative only if SB 722 of the 2009–10 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2011. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 2069 and 2099 Of, and to Add Section 2840 To, the Fish and Game Code, and to Amend Section 25524 Of, to Add Section 25619 To, and to Add and Repeal Sections 21081.8 and 21097.5 Of, the Public Resources Code, Relating to Renewable Energy Resources, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.
Author(s)
Manuel Perez, Steven Bradford, Nancy Skinner
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Energy: renewable resources: endangered species: environmental impact reports
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/27/2009
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce4/27/2009
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations5/20/2009
    Passed Assembly5/28/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications7/07/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations8/17/2009
    Passed Senate9/01/2009
    Passed Senate9/01/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water8/25/2010
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations8/27/2010
    Failed passage in Senate9/01/2010
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on Utilities and CommerceDo pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.4/27/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce
    14 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.5/20/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    15 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1012 PEREZ, V.M. Third Reading Urgency5/28/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Energy, Utilities and CommunicationsDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.7/07/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications
    11 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.8/17/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    8 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedSenateAssembly 3rd Reading AB1012 V. Manuel Perez Urgency Clause9/01/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
    33 voted YES 0 voted NO 7 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateAssembly 3rd Reading AB1012 V. Manuel Perez Reconsider9/01/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
    36 voted YES 0 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Natural Resources and WaterThat the Assembly amendments be concurred in, but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.8/25/2010This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
    5 voted YES 2 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsFrom Committee: Amendments returned to Senate floor for consideration.8/27/2010This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    7 voted YES 3 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateW/O REF. TO FILE AB1012 V. Manuel Perez By Simitian9/01/2010This bill DID NOT PASS the Senate
    20 voted YES 14 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/27/2009
    2/27/2009Introduced. To print.
    3/01/2009From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.
    3/02/2009Read first time.
    3/26/2009Referred to Com. on U. & C.
    select this voteVote4/27/2009Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    5/04/2009From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 27).
    5/05/2009Read second time and amended.
    5/06/2009Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    select this voteVote5/20/2009Do pass.
    5/21/2009From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 20).
    5/26/2009Read second time. To third reading.
    5/28/2009Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed and to Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1746.)
    5/28/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage5/28/2009AB 1012 PEREZ, V.M. Third Reading Urgency
    6/11/2009Referred to Com. on E., U., & C.
    6/25/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E., U., & C.
    select this voteVote7/07/2009Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    7/08/2009From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (July 7).
    7/20/2009In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
    select this voteVote8/17/2009Do pass.
    8/17/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    8/18/2009From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (August 17).
    8/19/2009Read second time. To third reading.
    8/24/2009Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.
    8/27/2009Ordered to third reading.
    9/01/2009Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed and to Assembly. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 2056.) Motion to reconsider made by Senator Padilla. Reconsideration granted. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 2062.)
    currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage9/01/2009Assembly 3rd Reading AB1012 V. Manuel Perez Urgency Clause
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage9/01/2009Assembly 3rd Reading AB1012 V. Manuel Perez Reconsider
    9/04/2009Read third time, amended. To second reading.
    9/08/2009Read second time. To third reading.
    9/12/2009To inactive file on motion of Senator Romero.
    8/19/2010From inactive file. To second reading.
    8/20/2010Read third time, amended. To second reading.
    8/20/2010Read second time. To third reading.
    8/23/2010Read second time. To third reading. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 3. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
    8/25/2010From committee: That, pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10, the above measure be re-referred to the Com. on APPR pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
    select this voteVote8/25/2010That the Assembly amendments be concurred in, but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    8/27/2010From committee: Return to Senate floor for consideration. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) Ordered to third reading.
    select this voteVote8/27/2010From Committee: Amendments returned to Senate floor for consideration.
    8/30/2010Re-referred to Com. on RLS. Withdrawn from committee. Ordered to third reading.
    8/31/2010Re-referred to Com. on RLS. Senate Rule 29.3(b) suspended. (Ayes 23. Noes 9. Page 5117.) Ordered to third reading. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS. Withdrawn from committee.
    9/01/2010Read third time, passage refused. (Ayes 20. Noes 14. Page 5122.)
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage9/01/2010W/O REF. TO FILE AB1012 V. Manuel Perez By Simitian

    Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

    6 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 2069 and 2099 Of, and to Add Section 2840 To, the Fish and Game Code, and to Amend Section 25524 Of, to Add Section 25619 To, and to Add and Repeal Sections 21081.8 and 21097.5 Of, the Public Resources Code, Relating to Renewable Energy Resources, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.: Assembly 3rd Reading AB1012 V. Manuel Perez Urgency Clause

    6 organizations supported this bill

    American Lung Association of California
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, September 1). Bill Analysis AB 1012 9/1/2009. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from Official California Legislative Information.
    California Association of Realtors
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, September 1). Bill Analysis AB 1012 9/1/2009. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from Official California Legislative Information.
    Dow Chemical Company
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, September 1). Bill Analysis AB 1012 9/1/2009. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from Official California Legislative Information.
    Sierra Club California
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, September 1). Bill Analysis AB 1012 9/1/2009. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from Official California Legislative Information.
    The Utility Reform Network
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, September 1). Bill Analysis AB 1012 9/1/2009. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from Official California Legislative Information.
    U.S. Green Building Council
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, September 1). Bill Analysis AB 1012 9/1/2009. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from Official California Legislative Information.

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2010.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Sam AanestadRCA-4$8,200$0Yes
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$14,426$0Not Voting
    Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
    John BenoitRCA-37$25,249$0Yes
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$41,050$0Yes
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$8,900$0Yes
    Dave CogdillRCA-14$28,650$0Yes
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$23,951$0Yes
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$57,435$0Yes
    Dave CoxRCA-1$11,600$0Yes
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$14,199$0Not Voting
    Jeff DenhamRCA-12$24,941$0Yes
    Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$18,099$0Yes
    Dean FlorezDCA-16$1,500$0Yes
    Loni HancockDCA-9$11,550$0Yes
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$46,050$0Yes
    Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$2,000$0Yes
    Bob HuffRCA-29$54,076$0Yes
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$16,550$0Yes
    Mark LenoDCA-3$25,875$0Yes
    Carol LiuDCA-21$19,200$0Not Voting
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$21,700$0Yes
    Abel MaldonadoRCA-15$25,150$0Yes
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$37,400$0Yes
    Jenny OropezaDCA-28$3,000$0Not Voting
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$43,600$0Yes
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$20,700$0Yes
    Curren PriceDCA-26$32,600$0Yes
    Gloria RomeroDCA-24$2,500$0Not Voting
    George RunnerRCA-17$29,550$0Not Voting
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$34,600$0Yes
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$70,150$0Not Voting
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$59,700$0Yes
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$39,600$0Yes
    Pat WigginsDCA-2$1,250$0Yes
    Lois WolkDCA-5$29,428$0Yes
    Rod WrightDCA-25$45,800$0Yes
    Mark WylandRCA-38$23,500$0Yes
    Leland YeeDCA-8$42,395$0Yes

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Sam AanestadRCA-4$8,200$0Yes
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$14,426$0Not Voting
    Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
    John BenoitRCA-37$25,249$0Yes
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$41,050$0Yes
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$8,900$0Yes
    Dave CogdillRCA-14$28,650$0Yes
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$23,951$0Yes
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$57,435$0Yes
    Dave CoxRCA-1$11,600$0Yes
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$14,199$0Not Voting
    Jeff DenhamRCA-12$24,941$0Yes
    Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$18,099$0Yes
    Dean FlorezDCA-16$1,500$0Yes
    Loni HancockDCA-9$11,550$0Yes
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$46,050$0Yes
    Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$2,000$0Yes
    Bob HuffRCA-29$54,076$0Yes
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$16,550$0Yes
    Mark LenoDCA-3$25,875$0Yes
    Carol LiuDCA-21$19,200$0Not Voting
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$21,700$0Yes
    Abel MaldonadoRCA-15$25,150$0Yes
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$37,400$0Yes
    Jenny OropezaDCA-28$3,000$0Not Voting
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$43,600$0Yes
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$20,700$0Yes
    Curren PriceDCA-26$32,600$0Yes
    Gloria RomeroDCA-24$2,500$0Not Voting
    George RunnerRCA-17$29,550$0Not Voting
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$34,600$0Yes
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$70,150$0Not Voting
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$59,700$0Yes
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$39,600$0Yes
    Pat WigginsDCA-2$1,250$0Yes
    Lois WolkDCA-5$29,428$0Yes
    Rod WrightDCA-25$45,800$0Yes
    Mark WylandRCA-38$23,500$0Yes
    Leland YeeDCA-8$42,395$0Yes

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Real estate$368,991
    Building operators & managers$294,196
    Engineering, architecture & construction management services$205,848
    Chemicals$55,750
    Environmental policy$45,890
    Health & welfare policy$45,449
    Consumer groups$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range