reminder: leadership group meetings are confidential...
TRANSCRIPT
Reminder: Leadership Group meetings are confidential
Working Council
Thursday, June 4, 2015 Location: Blach Construction
2020 Fortune Drive, Suite 100, San Jose, CA
DRAFT AGENDA
7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation
8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder
Welcome and Introductions
Welcome to new Member Company Representatives
Staffing Updates
President's Report
Turning Red Tape into Red Carpet 3.0 kickoff – June 11th Application Kickoff
Q2 Leadership Group Board Meeting @ Yahoo, June 11th
Workplace Wellness Summit @ Brocade, June 12th
Annual Public Official Staff Appreciation @ SJ Giants, August 3rd
Discussion / Action Item
Strategic Path Forward - Work Plan Criteria Final
Work Plan (ROI Metrics) Review and Recommendations
(Policy, Programs, Projects and Events) Action
Events Criteria Review and Recommendations Action
Consent Items
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: May 7, 2015 Working Council Regular Meeting
SB 550 (Hertzberg) - Net Energy metering Recommended Action: Support
AB 90 (Atkins) - CalHome Program Recommended Action: Support
Guest Speaker
Update on Governor Brown’s Delta Plan – Secretary John Laird, CA Natural Resources
(confirmed) 9:10 AM Time Certain
Action Items
Governor Brown’s Delta Plan Recommended Action: Support
SB 471 (Pavley) - Water, energy, and reduction of
Greenhouse gas emissions Recommended Action: Support
AB 366 (Bonta) & SB 243 (Hernandez) Medi-Cal:
Reimbursement: Provider rates Recommended Action: Support *
AB 1096 (Chiu) – E bikes Recommended Action: Support *
AB 1056 (Atkins) Housing assistance for formerly Recommended Action: Support
Incarcerated tenants
*NOTE: (AB 1300, AB 366, and AB1096 are pending Health Committee and Transportation
Committee action respectively)
2015 Home Run Goal Updates 1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area
Energy Transportation Federal Issues
Education Government Relations Tax Policy
Environment Housing & Land Use Health
Community Technology Policy
10:15 a.m. Adjournment
Next Meeting: July 9, 2015 Location: Santa Clara University
2015 Working Council Meeting Schedule
January 8
February 5
March 5
April 2
May 7
June 4
July 9
August 6
September 3
October 14 Strategy Conference*
November 5
December 3
*Conference location confirmed @ LinkedIn Sunnyvale
Working Council
Thursday, May 7, 2015
7:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
Blach Construction, 2020 Fortune Drive, Ste. 100
San Jose, CA
Members Present:
Erin Brennock, Working Council Chair
Jeff Rangel, Brocade; Working Council Vice-Chair
Patrick Quinn, Blach Construction, Host
Kay O'Neill, #YesWeCode
Diane Matulich, Advanced Micro Devices
Jason Lundgaard, Apple
Monica Gomez, Applied Materials
Angela Yang, AT&T
Sara Broadbent, Avaya
Gail Mohr, Bank of America
Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences
Roger Kirkpatrick, Bloom Energy
Pat Mapeli, Cargill
Brian Hubinger, Chevron
Ralph Dickman, City National Bank
Theo Pahos, Constellation
Rena Lane, eHealth
Adam Simpson, EtaGen
John Mummert, Foothill College
Vicki Wilkerson , Fortinet
Blair King, Harmonic
Jennifer Hernandez, IBM
Dryden Little, Insikt
Nancy Noe, Johnson & Johnson
Mike Rizzo, KLA Tencor
Chris Schwarz, Lam Research
Mike Alba, LinkedIn
Ashley Howell, Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Diana Bautista, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Thomas Baity, Neslon Technology
Allison Darin, Nexenta
Ron Gonzales, Presencia
Ross Highnchi, Protiviti
Rahul Chandhok, San Francisco 49ers
Stacy Gleixner, San Jose State University
Steven Shee, SanDisk
Jackie Forsythe, Santa Clara University
Kellie Drenner, SAP
Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank
Francesca Wahl, SolarCity
Maya Biery, SunEdison
Debra LaTourette, Synnex
Janikke Klem, Tech CU
John Hogan, TeenForce
Leslie Rodriguez, Texas Instruments
Donna Blitzer, UCSC
Todd Lewis, UPS
Sabine Middlemass, Virgin America
Navid Sarrafzadeh, Webcor Builders
Sunil Pandya, Wells Fargo
Bob Bowen, Western Digital
Jim Davis, XOvertime
Staff Present:
Casey Beyer
Brian Brennan
Bena Chang
Kathleen Cook
Paul Escobar
Alex Felton
Angela Gile
Catharine Ingram
Tim McRae
Mike Mielke
Zoe Mullendore
Kristina Perlata
Eddie Truong
Connie Vieaux
AGENDA 8:01 – 8:21
8:05 - Erin Brennock called the meeting to order and thanked Blach Construction Company for hosting the
meeting.
8:06 – 8:17 – Carl Guardino led the introductions of first time Working Council attendees
8:17 – 8:20 – Carl Guardino gave staffing updates: Kathleen Cook, Executive Assistant to Carl Guardino will be
leaving at the end of the month
8:20 – 8:21 – Carl Guardino announced we need Working Council Hosts for August – December of 2015
President's Report 8:21 – 8:31
Debriefed Annual Sacramento Advocacy Trip
CEO Business Climate Summit @ Microsoft, May 13th
Regional Economic Forum @ Computer Museum,
May 29th
Q2 SVLG Board Meeting @ Yahoo, June 11th
Workplace Wellness Summit @ Brocade, June 12th
Discussion/Action Item 8:31 – 9:30
Leadership Group’s Sustainable Work Plan 2016-2018 – A Path Forward led by Carl Guardino and Bena Chang
The Five Criteria to eliminate items from the WorkPlan were discussed, and edits were made. Questions and
comments were raised by: Jeff Rangel, Erin Brennock, Sara Broadbent, John Hogan, Janikke Klem, Gail Mohr,
Bob Bowen, Jim Davis, Vicki Wilkerson, Brian Hubinger, John Mummert, Diane Matulich, Nancy Noe, Jason
Lungaard
Criteria Number Made the Motion to Approve Seconded
1 Erin Brennock Ron Gonzales
2 Patrick Quinn Janikke Klem
3 Matthew Brown Ralph Dickman
4 Chris Schwarz Robert Bowen
5 Diane Matulich John Mummert
Grant Piece John Hogan Ron Gonzales
Overall Criteria Janikke Klem Ron Gonzales
Consent Items
All of the consent items were approved.
Ron Gonzales made the motion to approve, Nancy Noe seconded. One abstention.
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: April 2, 2015 Working Council Meeting
AB 1236 (Chiu and Low) EV Charger Permitting Action: Support
AB 746 (Ting) - SF Bay Restoration Authority Action: Support
SB 16 (Beall) -State Transportation Funding Package Action: Support
AB 1288 (Atkins) – CA Global Warming Solutions Act Action: Support
AB 57 (Quirk) – Wireless Tower Siting Action: Support
SB 235 (Block) - Small-dollar loan pilot program Action: Support
AB 1483 (Gatto) -- Establishment of New UC Campus Action: No Position
Action Items
All of the action items were approved.
SB 286 (Hertzberg)- Direct Access Action: Support in concept
Presenter: Jim Davis
AB 674 (Mullin)- Non-by passable charges for Distributed Generation Action: Support
Presenter: Jim Davis
AB 1360 (Ting)- Transportation Network Companies and Splitting Fares Action: Support
Presenter: Mike Alba
AB 789 (Calderon) - Non-resident Contact Lens Seller Registration Act Action: Oppose
Presenter: Nancy Noe
SB 172 (Liu) – High School Exit Exam Action: Support
Presenter: Janikke Klem
AB 377 (Linder) AP/IB Test Fee Grant Action: Support
Presenter: Janikke Klem
SB 323 (Hernandez) / AB 1306 (Burke) – Nurse Practitioners &Certified Nurse-Midwives Action: Support
Presenter: Alexandria Felton
SB 364 (Leno) Ellis Act Reform Action: No position
Taken off the Action Item List
10:10 am – Meeting adjourned.
Criteria for Strategic Realignment of Workplan
1. Alignment with Leadership Group Priorities: Does the item fall under an existing policy vertical (e.g. housing, environment, energy)?
2. Leadership Group Influence: Is this item something the Leadership Group is uniquely
positioned to do? Could we point to this item and say that the Leadership Group made a unique and specific contribution to make the effort succeed?
3. Broad Membership Support: Is this item important to a broad set of our members, not just one
or two companies? Does the issue have a long-term impact on Leadership Group members? Does the issue have an important secondary impact on Leadership Group members (e.g. issues around workforce recruitment and retention or worker productivity)?
4. Time & Treasure: Amount of staff time needed versus impact. Is the amount of staff time
invested justified for the expected impact? Is the expected financial cost to our members justified by the expected impact? What kind of return do we expect for the effort we put in?
5. Grant funded workplan items: For this year, items that are grant funded will stay in the
workplan until the grant is completed. This does not guarantee that after the grant term is over that this item will stay in the workplan.
6. Timeliness: Is this item going to move this year? Are the political and policy stars aligned? We
can capture items that are not moving on a separate list apart from the workplan.
Metrics for Policy Impact a. Legislation is passed or killed b. Initiative (if it is a ballot measure) is passed or killed c. Regulatory or administrative issue is adopted or killed d. Number of legislators with whom we talked e. Number of co-authors that signed on f. Weighing financial investment g. Probability of Success
5/29/2015
Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2015-2017 Workplan Overview
Regional Workforce Development: Promote state and regional policies and partnerships that develop and promote a strong regional workforce. (Berglund, Faron, Karavadra,Mummert)Staff: Kristina Peralta/Alexandria Felton
Clean Energy: Promote financing and deployment of clean energy and emerging technologies and engage in efforts to advance AB 32, to the benefit of the tech sector. (Plund)Staff: Tim McRae
Advance 21st Century Water Supply System: Advance necessary water reforms, practices, policies and tools and financing to ensure the region has the water it needs for a growing population. (Yolles) Staff: Mike Mielke
1a. US High-Skilled Immigration Reform: Support modern immigration system/highly-skilled talent. (Becker, Milligan, Polese) Staff: Emily Lam/Grace Kay*SVCIP
Silicon Valley Roundtables and Outreach: Organize a dozen strategic roundtables on the federal, state & local levels to develop legislative relationships and further policy. (various) Staff: Grace Kay
Prevention and Wellness: Continue to help employers start or improve wellness programs and offerings as a long term cost containment strategy. (Dawes, Fallon, Karavadra) Staff: Alexandria Felton
State Funding: Identify and support funding sources for affordable housing. Advance a "permanent source" bill. (Berkes) Staff: Amanda Montez *SVCIP
US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower business tax rate/territorial tax. (Becker, Karavadra, Bergmann, Parker)Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Cybersecurity* (Archambeau, Karanadra, Milligan, Padwal) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
BART to Silicon Valley: Advocate for Phase 2 funding at the federal and state levels. (Engh, Qayoumi) Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP
Applied Materials Silicon Valley Turkey Trot: Secure 28,000 paid participants, supported by 2500 volunteers, raising $1,000,000 for charity. (Boland, Splinter) Staff: Carl Guardino
Industry/Higher Education Task Force: Help shape and support legislative efforts to increase the pipeline of employable graduates; convene biannually. (Blumenthal, Maner)Staff: Kristina Peralta
Energy Efficiency: Assist end users with improving energy efficiency and data center efficiency. (Bullington, Tierney-Lloyd) Staff: Tim McRae
Support Corporate Environmental Sustainability: Advance corporate sustainability drivers and showcase solutions that protect the environment while growing new markets &/or reducing costs. (Chorley) Staff: Mike Mielke
1b. US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower business tax rate/territorial tax. (Becker, Karavadra, Bergmann, Parker)Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Silicon Valley Caucus: Strengthen and expand the Silicon Valley Caucus with 100 executives and 13 legislators. (Berglund, Blach, Alusic)Staff: Grace Kay
CA Health Exchange - Small Business Program: Advocate for reduced premiums, long term cost containment, and more employer choice. (Boyd, Dickman) Staff: Emily Lam
Regional Planning at Lawrence Station: Lead adoption of a plan with higher densities, aggressive mode shift goals and additional affordable housing. (Sege) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Permanent CA Sales and Use Tax Exemption on R&D/Mfg Equipment Purchases: Improve existing partial and temporary exemption. (Gordon) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Regulatory (including FDA and emerging tech)* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
2016 Santa Clara County Transportation Measure: Build a coalition, define expenditure plan, and conduct polling on a potential transportation measure. Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP
1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds: Reinitiate with SJ Mayor Sam Liccardo to recruit another 500 caring tutors for K-8 students in reading, math and science. Staff: Paul Escobar *SVCIP
Educare Capital Campaign: Conclude capital funding effort in advance of school opening in Aug. 2015. (McNeely, Ferrer)(Kristina Peralta)*SVCIP
Grid Modernization: Promote participation and facilitate integration of technologies that support a smarter, reliable grid and enable development of a new energy market structure. (King) Staff: Tim McRae
Support Regional and State Climate Change Planning and Preparedness: Engage business community in state and regional climate change adaptation efforts. (Maloney) Staff: Mike Mielke
Cybersecurity: Advocate and pass collaborative public-private partnership to protect national cyber infrastructure and enhances the innovation economy. (Archambeau, Karanadra, Milligan, Padwal) Staff: Casey Beyer
Federal and State Advocacy Trips: Participation of 40 executives and public officials on the DC trips (Spring & Fall) and Sacramento trip. (Becker)Staff: Emily Lam/Grace Kay
CA Health Exchange - Web Based Brokers: Implementation of policy allowing web based brokers to enroll subsidy eligible Californians through private internet based marketplaces. (Lauer) Staff: Emily Lam
Public Agency Surplus Land: Lead campaign to change VTA's real estate development policy to include affordable housing requirements. (Johnson) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Improve CA Research and Development Tax Credit: Support solutions to expand R&D investment in California. (Chu, Slater, Korniakov) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Infrastructure (including broadband)* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Caltrain: Work with Caltrain on short, mid and long term strategies to double ridership in 10 years to 120,000 daily riders. Co-lead the Caltrain Commuter Coalition with the Bay Area Council and SAMCEDA. (Berglund) Staff: Bena Chang/ Zoe Mullendore *SVCIP
Pasta Bowl Community Partnership w/49ers: Raise $200,000 for education programs for disadvantaged kids in needy schools. Staff: Catharine Ingram
Education Summit: Produce annual education conference for industry leaders with 300 attendees, focus on industry hiring needs. (Forsythe, Sege) Staff: Kristina Peralta
Energy RD&D: Advocate for state and federal investments in energy research, development and demonstration projects.(Rotman) Staff: Tim McRae
Promote Co-Equal Goals of Reliable Water Supply & Ecosystem Health: Support Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. (Ball) Staff: Mike Mielke
STEM/Scientific Research Funding: Support technology innovation investments in scientific research agencies (eg. NIH, NSF and others) (Adesnik)Staff: Emily Lam
Fresh Ideas: Host new California state legislators for get-to-know- you sessions in Sacramento. (Sager, Whitten) Staff: Grace Kay
Promote policies that encourage innovation: Pursue growth policies in health including biotech, genomics, and IT. Staff: Emily Lam/ Alexandria Felton
Homelessness: Establish homeless employment initiative to open up 250 jobs over three years at the Leadership Group member companies. Target 50 jobs in the first year. (Faron, Joseph, Sege) Staff: Amanda Montez
Silicon Valley Property Tax Valuation Fairness: Partner with County Assessors to promote fair valuation tables, consistent & efficient audits. (Slater/Harris) Staff: Grace Kay
Privacy/Big Data* (Forsythe)Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Transit & Rail: Pursue efficient, effective and sustainable transit. Advocate for sustainable pricing policies. (Tueckmantel)Staff: Bena Chang
TiVo Santa Run Silicon Valley: Secure 5,000 race participants, raising $125,000 for charity. (Karavadra, Wymer) Staff: Carl Guardino
Young Women's Leadership Summit: Produce 1 regional summit in low-income school, reach 450+ girls & contribute to STEM programs. (Grahan, Turner, York)Staff: Alexandria Felton/Kristina Peralta*SVCIP
Energy Agency Modernization and Reform: Identify and support long-term changes needed at California public agencies in charge of energy policy-making. (Amram) Staff: Tim McRae
Support Regional & State Climate Change Mitigation Efforts: Advance enabling environment that allows clean & efficient energy to scale. (Mohr, Randlett) Staff: Mike Mielke
Support High-Growth Entrepreneurship: Improve the business and regulatory environment for startups. (Becker, Polese) Staff: Grace Kay/Brian Brennan
Red Tape into Red Carpet (RT2RC): Innovative awards reception to honor local governments that achieve meaningful reforms and high quality job creation services. (Sege) Staff: Casey Beyer
Promote Health in All Policies: Approach to improve community health including participation in Partnerships to Improve Community Health (PICH) CDC grant. (Ferrer) Staff: Alexandria Felton
CEQA: Lay groundwork for legislation through ongoing public relations and education. Oversee completion of 6 regional CEQA tours. (Ball) Staff: Amanda Montez*SVCIP
Intangible Software Tax Fairness: Support reasonable, simple and fair application of state business taxes on software & technology. (Slater/Rodriguez)Staff: Grace Kay
Basic Research Funding* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Vehicle Innovation: Encourage the adoption of advanced technology to green our vehicle fleet, enhance mobility & promote sustainable transportation. (Berglund) Staff: Bena Chang
Lam Research Heart & Soles 5K Run or Walk: For Year 2 secure $180,000 funding for another 60 salad bars to bring our 2 Year total to 116. (Anstice, Boland, Hayse) Staff: Carl Guardino
Young Men's Leadership Summit: Produce 1 regional summit in low-income school, reach 450+ students & contribute to STEM programs. (Graham, McNeely) Staff: Kristina Peralta*SVCIP
Grid Reliability: Promote greater grid resiliency, safety and reliability for both gas and electric systems. (Burt)Staff: Tim McRae
Patent Reform: Advocate for legislation that modernizes the patent system. (Marlow, Luftman) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Road to the White House: In-depth policy discussions with top 2016 Presidential candidates in partnership with the Tech Museum. (Boland, Coleman, Hawkins, Johnson, Lauer) Staff: Carl Guardino
Project Advocacy: Endorse and advocate for 10 housing proposals. (Kramer) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Board of Equalization - Reasonable Audits: Develop reasonable valuations and audit manual guidance for business taxpayers. (Matulich, Rodriguez) Staff: Grace Kay
Patents* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Active Transportation: Promote active transportation modes like biking and walking. (Ball) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
SV Talent Partnership: Encourage member companies to support the work of the Silicon Valley Talent Partnership, to provide short-term, pro bono technology assistance to public agencies.(Hernandez) Staff: Casey Beyer
Outreach and Education: Educate key decision makers on housing issues by organizing one housing tour, four lunches for city officials and four dinners for neighborhood leaders. (Sherrard) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Net Neutrality* Staff: Sr. Director for Technology & Innovation Policy Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Superbowl Transportation: Convene quarterly meetings with all 35 Regional Transportation Agencies to ensure a successful Transit Plan. (York)Staff: Zoe Mullendore
CCBI: Incubated through 2016, the California Climate Breakthrough Initiative will help educate the general public and engage key influencers regarding climate change impacts and solutions. (Hayse)Staff: Mike Mielke
Regional Traffic Relief: Assist San Francisco and Santa Cruz Counties with passing 2016 transportation measures. (Kannappan, Schwager) Staff: Zoe Mullendore*SVCIPAirport: Increase service to Silicon Valley (SJC) to better link the region & support the fiscal sustainability of the airport. Staff: Bena Chang
KEY: 71 - Deliverables Green - Complete Yellow/Green - Partial Yellow - On Track Red - Off Track *Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project
Housing Advocacy: Serve on executive committee to administer grant funds to decide whether to form a new housing advocacy organization in Silicon Valley.(VanEvery) Staff: Amanda Montez
*These topics are preliminary, pending the deliberations of the Technology & Innovation Policy Committee to be formed in Q1 2015.
Latino Technology Scholarship Fund:In partnership with HFSV, help provide scholarships to 500 local students to earn college degrees in STEM.(Gonzales, Gonzalez, Hastings, Sanchez, Titinger, Urrutia)Staff: Carl Guardino
Advocates for policies that reflect reliable, environmentally-
responsible and competitively-priced energy.
Improve the quality of life for residents and companies in Silicon
Valley.
Ensure environmental sustainability that improves the quality of life and
supports business growth. Increase the ease and
sustainability of mobility in Silicon Valley.
Advocate for federal policies that improve national business climate and
foster innovation.
Provide opportunities to develop in-depth relationships with local, state and federal
policy leaders.
Advocate for regulatory and legislative tax policies that improve the U.S. and California
Promote policies and programs to improve the health of Silicon Valley
employees. Facilitate land use and development patterns
that increase housing attainability.
Promote a policy environment conducive to the development and
adoption of technology products and processes.
Improve quality of teaching and learning in birth-through-workforce
pipeline.
5/29/2015
Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2015-2017 Workplan Overview with Staff & Committee Recommendations
New Education Reforms: Support the implementation of new statewide and national reforms, such as Common Core, Next Generation Science Standards and STEM.Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truoun
Clean Energy: Promote financing and deployment of clean energy and emerging technologies and engage in efforts to advance AB 32, to the benefit of the tech sector. (Plund)Staff: Tim McRae
Advance 21st Century Water Supply System: Advance necessary water reforms, practices, policies and tools and financing to ensure the region has the water it needs for a growing population. (Yolles) Staff: Mike Mielke
Silicon Valley Roundtables and Outreach: Organize a dozen strategic roundtables on the federal, state & local levels to develop legislative relationships and further policy. (various) Staff: Grace Kay
Prevention and Wellness: Continue to help employers start or improve wellness programs and offerings as a long term cost containment strategy. (Dawes, Fallon, Karavadra) Staff: Alexandria Felton
Permanent Funding: Identify and support funding sources for affordable housing on the local and state level. Advance a "permanent source" bill. (Berkes) Staff: Amanda Montez *SVCIP
US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower business tax rate/territorial tax. (Becker, Karavadra, Bergmann, Parker)Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Patent Reform: Advocate for legislation that modernizes the patent system. (Marlow, Luftman) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
BART to Silicon Valley: Advocate for Phase 2 funding at the federal and state levels. (Engh, Qayoumi) Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP
Applied Materials Silicon Valley Turkey Trot: Secure 28,000 paid participants, supported by 2500 volunteers, raising $1,000,000 for charity. (Boland, Splinter) Staff: Carl Guardino
Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: Promote policies and programs that prepare and encourage the inclusion and participation of women and underreprsented minorities in STEM careers.Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truong
Energy Efficiency: Assist end users with improving energy efficiency and data center efficiency. (Bullington, Tierney-Lloyd) Staff: Tim McRae
Support Corporate Environmental Sustainability: Advance corporate sustainability drivers and showcase solutions that protect the environment while growing new markets &/or reducing costs. (Chorley) Staff: Mike Mielke
Silicon Valley Caucus: Strengthen and expand the Silicon Valley Caucus with 100 executives and 13 legislators. (Berglund, Blach, Alusic)Staff: Grace Kay
CA Health Exchange - Employer Advocacy: Advocate for reduced premiums, long term cost containment, and more employer choice. (Boyd, Dickman) Staff: Alexandria Felton
Regional Planning at Lawrence Station: Lead adoption of a plan with higher densities, aggressive mode shift goals and additional affordable housing. (Sege) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Permanent CA Sales and Use Tax Exemption on R&D/Mfg Equipment Purchases: Improve existing partial and temporary exemption. (Gordon) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Cybersecurity: Advocate and pass collaborative public-private partnership to protect national cyber infrastructure and enhances the innovation economy. (Archambeau, Karanadra, Milligan, Padwal) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
2016 Santa Clara County Transportation Measure: Build a coalition, define expenditure plan, and conduct polling on a potential transportation measure. Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP
1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds: Reinitiate with SJ Mayor Sam Liccardo to recruit another 500 caring tutors for K-8 students in reading, math and science. Staff: Paul Escobar *SVCIP
Education Technology: Advocate for educational technologies that support and improve learning (child development, academic outcomes, skills training).Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truong
Grid Modernization & Reliability: Promote participation and facilitate integration of technologies that support a smarter, reliable grid and enable development of a new energy market structure. (Burt, King) Staff: Tim McRae
Support Regional and State Climate Change Planning and Preparedness: Engage business community in state and regional climate change adaptation efforts. (Maloney) Staff: Mike Mielke
Federal and State Advocacy Trips: Participation of 40 executives and public officials on the DC trips (Spring & Fall) and Sacramento trip. (Becker)Staff: Emily Lam/Grace Kay
CA Health Exchange - State Legislation: Implementation of policies that increase access to care and ensure long-term cost containment.(Boyd, Dickman) Staff: Emily Lam
Public Agency Surplus Land: Lead campaign to change VTA's real estate development policy to include affordable housing requirements. (Johnson)Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Improve CA Research and Development Tax Credit: Support solutions to expand R&D investment in California. (Chu, Slater, Korniakov) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP
Basic Research Funding Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Caltrain: Work with Caltrain on short, mid and long term strategies to double ridership in 10 years to 120,000 daily riders. Co-lead the Caltrain Commuter Coalition with the Bay Area Council and SAMCEDA. (Berglund) Staff: Bena Chang/ Zoe Mullendore *SVCIP
Pasta Bowl Community Partnership w/49ers: Raise $200,000 for education programs for disadvantaged kids in needy schools. Staff: Catharine Ingram
Workforce Development: Stimulate demand for the development of a diverse workforce in the Valley, with a focus on recruitment, training, and retention. Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truong
Energy RD&D: Advocate for state and federal investments in energy research, development and demonstration projects.(Rotman) Staff: Tim McRae
Promote Co-Equal Goals of Reliable Water Supply & Ecosystem Health: Support Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. (Ball) Staff: Mike Mielke
Fresh Ideas: Host new California state legislators for get-to-know- you sessions in Sacramento. (Sager, Whitten) Staff: Grace Kay
Promote policies that encourage innovation: Pursue growth policies in health including biotech, genomics, and IT. Staff: Emily Lam/ Alexandria Felton
Homelessness: Establish homeless employment initiative to open up 150 jobs over three years at the Leadership Group member companies. Target 50 jobs in the first year. (Faron, Joseph, Sege) Staff: Amanda Montez
Silicon Valley Property Tax Valuation Fairness: Partner with County Assessors to promote fair valuation tables, consistent & efficient audits. (Slater/Harris) Staff: Grace Kay
Privacy/Big Data (Forsythe)Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
VTA Shuttles Policy: Work with VTA on a policy for private shuttles that meets VTA's operational needs and encourages shuttles to move SV employees.
Staff: Bena Chang
TiVo Santa Run Silicon Valley: Secure 5,000 race participants, raising $125,000 for charity. (Karavadra, Wymer) Staff: Carl Guardino
Support Regional & State Climate Change Mitigation Efforts: Advance enabling environment that allows clean & efficient energy to scale. (Mohr, Randlett) Staff: Mike Mielke
Red Tape into Red Carpet (RT2RC): Innovative awards reception to honor local governments that achieve meaningful reforms and high quality job creation services. (Sege) Staff: Casey Beyer
CEQA: Lay groundwork for legislation through ongoing public relations and education. Oversee completion of 6 regional CEQA tours. (Ball) Staff: Amanda Montez*SVCIP
Intangible Software Tax Fairness: Support reasonable, simple and fair application of state business taxes on software & technology. (Slater/Rodriguez)Staff: Grace Kay
Regulatory(including FDA and emerging tech)Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Superbowl Transportation: Convene quarterly meetings with all 35 Regional Transportation Agencies to ensure a successful Transit Plan. (York)Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Lam Research Heart & Soles 5K Run or Walk: For Year 2 secure $180,000 funding for another 60 salad bars to bring our 2 Year total to 116. (Anstice, Boland, Hayse) Staff: Carl Guardino
Project Advocacy: Endorse and advocate for 10 housing proposals. (Kramer) Staff: Zoe Mullendore
Outreach and Education: Educate emerging community leaders on housing issues through one housing tour and four dinners. Engage and cultivate housing advocates across the
i th h th i
Net Neutrality* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Airport: Increase service to Silicon Valley (SJC) to better link the region & support the fiscal sustainability of the airport. Staff: Bena Chang
CCBI: Incubated through 2016, the California Climate Breakthrough Initiative will help educate the general public and engage key influencers regarding climate change i t d l ti ( )
KEY: 61 - Deliverables Green - Complete Yellow/Green - Partial Yellow - On Track *Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project
Latino Technology Scholarship Fund:In partnership with HFSV, help provide scholarships to 500 local students to earn college degrees in STEM.(Gonzales, Gonzalez, Hastings, S h Titi U ti )
Housing Advocacy: Serve on executive committee to administer grant funds to decide whether to form a new housing advocacy organization in Silicon Valley.(VanEvery) St ff Z M ll d
Board of Equalization - Reasonable Audits: Develop reasonable valuations and audit manual guidance for business taxpayers. (Matulich, Rodriguez) Staff: Grace Kay
Infrastructure (including broadband) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz
Regional Traffic Relief: Assist San Francisco and Santa Cruz Counties with passing 2016 transportation measures. (Kannappan, Schwager) Staff: Zoe Mullendore*SVCIP
SV Talent Partnership: Encourage member companies to support the work of the Silicon Valley Talent Partnership, to provide short-term, pro bono technology assistance to public agencies.(Hernandez) Staff: Casey Beyer
Road to the White House: In-depth policy discussions with top 2016 Presidential candidates in partnership with the Tech Museum. (Boland, Coleman, Hawkins, Johnson, Lauer) Staff: Carl Guardino
Advocates for policies that reflect reliable, environmentally-
responsible and competitively-priced energy.
Improve the quality of life for residents and companies in Silicon
Valley.
Ensure environmental sustainability that improves the quality of life and
supports business growth. Increase the ease and
sustainability of mobility in Silicon Valley.
Provide opportunities to develop in-depth relationships with local, state and federal
policy leaders.
Advocate for regulatory and legislative tax policies that improve the U.S. and California
Promote policies and programs to improve the health of Silicon Valley
employees. Facilitate land use and development patterns
that increase housing attainability.
Promote a policy environment conducive to the development and
adoption of technology products and processes.
Improve quality of teaching and learning in birth-through-workforce
pipeline.
Event Specific Criteria
1. Objective: There should be a clear policy or relationship objective to the event. 2. Unique and specific message/purpose: There should be a unique role this event plays in driving
this policy or relationship that cannot be accomplished in another setting or program. 3. Timeliness: This event should be timely and relevant in driving this policy or relationship. 4. Broad Interest: There should be broad enough interest from our members and stakeholders to
attend the event - it should not be difficult to get buy-in from guests. 5. Time/Treasure: The staff time invested into this event should provide a worthwhile return on
sponsorships and paid participants. 6. Efficiency: This event should use the calendar space efficiently, and consider achieving the
objective, or elements of it in conjunction with another event or program. 7. (Budget: Revenue threshold of $50k for Signature Programs).
Event categories:
Signature Programs (the big 18):
150+ expected guests
Prior threshold of $30k-$50k
3+ program items comprised of panels and/or keynotes
3+ hours from start to finish Roundtable:
20-80 expected guests
hollow-square type format
conversational based program
typically less than 2.5 hours start to finish Workshop:
20-100 expected guests
theater or tabled seating format
program designed for presentation with break-out groups
Date: May 26, 2015 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Ria Varghese, Energy Coordinator; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director RE: SB 550 (Hertzberg); Net-energy metering Issue This bill would codify the methodology used by Publicly-Owned Utilities (POUs) when establishing their net energy metering (NEM) program limits. The bill would also eliminate the exception that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LA DWP) currently has from the NEM program as described in Public Utilities §2827. Energy Committee Recommendation Support Summary SB 550 attempts to establish a consistent, statewide policy for all electric utilities when calculating the NEM limit in their service territory. Current state law defines a “large electrical corporation” as one with more than 100,000 service connections in California. Existing law provides that an electric utility that is not a large electrical corporation is not obligated to provide net energy metering to additional eligible customer-generators in its service area when the combined total peak demand of all electricity used by these eligible customers exceeds 5% of the aggregate customer peak demand of the electric utility. This bill would codify the methodology to be followed when establishing a NEM program limit for electric utilities that are not large electric corporations (IOUs) and define the “aggregate customer peak demand” as the highest sum of the nonincident peak demands of all the customers in electric utilities in that service area that occurs in any calendar year. Under existing law, a local publicly owned electric utility (POU) that serves more than 750,000 customers and that also conveys water to its customers is exempted from the net energy metering requirements. The only POU which meets this criteria is LADWP and this bill would delete its exemption from the NEM program as described in Public Utilities §2827. The bill would also impose additional reporting requirements on the POUs. While Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) are required to file monthly reports with the state detailing their progress towards the NEM program limit, the POUs are currently exempt from this requirement. This bill would require POUs to file a quarterly report with the CEC detailing their progress towards the program limit as well as make this report available to the public for download from its internet website. In turn, the CEC would be required to post data on their website showing the progress of every electric utility (that is not a large electrical corporation) towards their respective program limits.
Background NEM policy allows the owner of an eligible renewable energy technology to receive retail credit for a portion of the electricity they generate. The “net” refers to what remains after energy generated is deducted from energy usage and can be either positive or negative. California's NEM law originally took effect in 1996 and eligible technologies are small solar, wind, hybrid (solar/wind), biogas and fuel cell generation facilities. On October 7, 2013 AB 327 (Perea) was signed into law, thereby giving the CPUC the authority to address inequities in current electricity rates, promote further development of clean energy and protect low income energy users. Additionally, AB 327 directed CPUC to develop a new standard contract to be offered to customers after each utility reaches its NEM cap.
The Leadership Group supported AB 327 and has a long history of commenting on NEM and rate design at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In 2012, the Leadership Group sent a letter in support of President Peevey's proposed decision (PD) on R.10-04-005 which addressed how to calculate the NEM cap and helped provide additional market certainty for stakeholders. In the letter, we stated that the Leadership Group “strongly supports the continued availability of NEM for homeowners, businesses, schools and governments seeking to invest in renewable energy sources. Many of our member companies have indicated that California's strong renewable energy policies were a key driver for locating their companies in this state and NEM is one of those key policies.” In March 2014, the Leadership Group submitted comments on the proposed decision (PD) for the NEM grandfathering transition period.
Analysis AB 327, in essence, codified the methodology to establish the NEM program limit for IOUs but left out the POUs. In
practice, each POU has interpreted “aggregate customer peak demand” differently, and are using different methodologies to calculate their net metering caps. Such demand within the service area is most easily determined by the use of smart meters. Several POUs do not have large, diverse customer bases over which to spread the cost of installing smart meters. Following the hearing at the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications committee, the bill’s author has included a clause to allow an electric utility that is not a large electrical corporation and does not have smart meters to determine aggregate customer peak demand using a method, as determined by the CEC, other than direct customer data collection. According to the author's office, at least four POUs have exceeded their 5% NEM caps to date and several more are rapidly approaching the caps. Enactment of this bill, as currently written, will mean that certain POUs – the City of Lompoc and in the Turlock Irrigation District, for example - that had exceeded the NEM cap, as calculated using their existing methodology for determining aggregate customer peak demand will be required to offer NEM to their customers once again. LADWP operates its own NEM program, which is not governed by Public Utilities §2827, and therefore an installer must comply with two sets of requirements depending on whether or not the work is performed in or outside of LADWP’s service territory. This offers an opportunity to implement best practices to standardize NEM practices across all applicable utilities in the region.
SB 550 aligns with Leadership Group principles on rate design as it encourages simple, transparent and equitable policies for all customers. With the deletion of LADWP's exemption from the NEM program and increased transparency for the POUs, this bill calls for the expansion of NEM program and ensures that the POUs are subject to the same restrictions that are currently imposed on IOUs within the state.
Status Introduced on February 26, 2015, was last amended by the author on May 4, 2015. The hearing at the Senate Appropriations committee was held on May 18, 2015 and the bill was placed on suspense file. The next committee hearing has been scheduled for May 28, 2015. Support Solar City (sponsor), The Alliance for Solar Choice (sponsor), Brightline Defense, California Solar Energy Industries Association, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Environment California, School Energy Coalition, Sierra Club California, Solar Energy Industries Association, TerraVerde
Opposition California Municipal Utilities Association, City of Lompoc, Northern California Power Agency, Southern California Public Power Authority, Turlock Irrigation District
DATE: June 4, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Land Use and Housing Committee
ACTION: Support AB90 (Atkins)
Background
The National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) was established as a provision of the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008, assigning a portion of revenues from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the
dedicated funding source. It provides grants to states to support the acquisition, new construction, or
reconstruction of rental units for extremely low-income families, including homeless families, and
homeownership for extremely low- and very low income families. However before funds could get to
NHTF, Fannie and Freddie were hit by 2008 banking crisis so this source of dedicated money was put on
hold.
On December 11th, 2014, FHFA Director Mel Watt lifted the suspension and directed Fannie and Freddie
to set aside funds starting January 1, 2015. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
estimates states will receive the money from the summer of 2016.
Currently the State has the multifamily housing program to provide a standardized set of program rules
and features applicable to all housing types. It also establishes the CalHome Program to provide grants
and loans to enable low- and very low income households to become or remain homeowners.
Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins proposed AB90 which was to create a framework for how California will
spend any funds received by NHTF. The bill would designate the Department of Housing and Community
as the state agency and require the department to administer the federal funds pursuant to the
multifamily housing program, except that up to 10% of the funds may be appropriated by the Legislature
to the CalHome Program. The bill would require the department to submit notifications with specified
information relating to the distribution, awarding, and expenditure of the federal funds, as prescribed.
Analysis
Housing Trust Funds have been proved to be effective in meeting the housing needs of low-income
households. The Leadership Group has always supported affordable housing and helped to build
Housing Trust Silicon Valley in 1998. The Housing and Land Use Committee recommends a support
position of the Leadership Group.
Date: May 28, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Mike Mielke, Senior Vice President for Environmental Programs and Policy; Lucy Moore, Environment Coordinator
Re: Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) vs. California WaterFix and EcoRestore
Issue On April 30, Governor Brown announced new plans to accelerate restoration of the Delta’s ecosystem and fix the state’s aging water infrastructure. The plans, called California WaterFix and EcoRestore, rely on traditional year-to-year environmental permitting rather than the 50-year-long permit included in the previous Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which the Leadership Group supported. In addition, the new plans give each of the two coequal goals put forth by the BDCP— achieving water supply reliability and restoring the Delta ecosystem—a life of its own. This change is reflected in the two distinct proposals, California WaterFix and California EcoRestore. The new plans are designed to address uncertainty related to climate change, as well as to fix the state’s aging and environmentally damaging water infrastructure system. California WaterFix is essentially the same water conveyance system as was proposed in the BDCP. California EcoRestore offers a viable solution to address the deterioration of the Delta’s ecosystem and the new focus allows critical habitat restoration to go forward while the merits of the tunnel plans are evaluated separately. Recommendation Support. Background The Delta provides at least some portion of the drinking water for two-thirds of the state’s population and supplies water to millions of acres of farmland. Half a million people also reside in the Delta region itself. But for years now, the Delta’s natural systems have been under growing pressure. Fish species like the Delta smelt have become endangered and the elaborate system of levees in the region is more than 100 years old in some places. Due to the age and disrepair of the current levees, the system is at great risk of failure in the event of an earthquake, which would allow saltwater from the San Francisco Bay to enter the Delta and foul the freshwater, potentially halting water exports. The Delta Reform Act of 2009 was passed in an attempt to deal with the dire situation and set as state policy the coequal goals of achieving water supply reliability and restoring the Delta ecosystem. The BDCP was then devised as a strategy to meet these goals but public criticism and concerns from federal agencies about the scope of the project cast doubt as to whether the proposed 50-year-plan was realistic. In response, the California WaterFix and EcoRestore plans were put forth. Summary In the current system, water is pulled south in a “reverse flow” direction, taking with it young salmon and other migratory fish that need to reach the ocean to survive. Many of these fish are ground up in the pumps or drawn near protective screens, where they are easy and predictable prey. Because the operation of the current system reverses river flows in a manner that harms endangered species, the projects are unable to move water as needed during very wet years. The solution proposed by engineers is to divert the water farther north, from the Sacramento River. This new system could move water supplies during very wet years in a way that is safe for endangered species. As such, it is a critical adaptation to climate change, which will undoubtedly bring both more intensely wet periods and prolonged droughts to California. The project enables movement of water during wet years that, combined with investments in storage and groundwater management, can be called upon to sustain the state's economy during dry periods. Fresh water would flow to the tunnels naturally, by gravity, with no new pumps to reverse flow and block the fish migration, and no chance of saltwater intruding that far north and tainting supplies for farms and families. In addition, the new system would be more resistant to earthquakes, floods or rises in sea level because the tunnels would be 150 feet underground. Both the BDCP and California WaterFix propose the construction of 3 new intakes with maximum diversion capacity of 3,000 cubic feet per second each, on the east bank of the Sacramento River
between Clarksburg and Courtland in the north Delta. Each intake site would employ state-of-the-art on-bank fish screens that would be designed to help protect Delta smelt. Two 40- foot-wide underground pipelines would carry the diverted water by gravity flow approximately 30 miles south to the expanded Clifton Court forebay where two pumping plants would be constructed to maintain optimal water levels in the forebay for the existing State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) pumping facilities. Those existing pumps would lift the water into the canals that flow hundreds of miles to supply San Joaquin Valley farms and cities as far away as San Diego. Though the total capacity of the pumps is considerable, they will only be operated at their full capacity in wet and “above-normal” years. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group has historically supported the BDCP, given the project’s benefits for Silicon Valley and the lack of feasible alternatives.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) vs. California WaterFix and EcoRestore
BDCP
California WaterFix & EcoRestore
Key Issues and Questions
Environmental restoration: The BDCP called for the enhancement and preservation of 145,000 acres of the Delta’s habitats over 50 years. The benefits of this plan included the protection of endangered species of fish, restoration of natural floodplains, the return of more natural flow patterns to the Delta and the creation and protection of wetlands.
Environmental restoration: The new CA EcoRestore proposal will pursue a more aggressive short-term schedule for habitat restoration in the Delta – 30,000 acres launched over the next four years – to more quickly address the deteriorating environment. The proposal has a reduced long-term objective and more limited authorizations under the federal and state endangered species acts in order to get the project going, which is one reason why federal agencies are more supportive of this proposal.
How, if at all, will the two distinct programs (WaterFix and EcoRestore) interact? What opportunities are there for continuing the restoration efforts beyond the initial 30,000 acres?
Water supply reliability: Construction of 3 new intakes on the east bank of the Sacramento River between Clarksburg and Courtland that would divert water from the north Delta into two 40- foot-wide underground pipelines. The tunnels would allow the diverted water to flow naturally to the expanded Clifton Court forebay, about 30 miles south.
Water supply reliability: California WaterFix proposes the same water conveyance system and provides 2,100 acres of habitat restoration (beyond the 30,000 acres included in EcoRestore) to mitigate construction and operation risks.
Without the 50-year permitting guarantee in the BDCP, how will water agencies get assurance of supply? How exactly will the year-to-year permitting plan work?
Timeline: Both the environmental restoration and water supply reliability projects were to be operated over a 50-year period. This goal was unprecedented and acted as a roadblock to federal approval.
Timeline: California EcoRestore will operate under a traditional year-to-year environmental permitting plan and restore 30,000 acres over the next 4 years. As EcoRestore is a more realistic plan, the state is ready to act now.
What is the timeline for California WaterFix?
Costs: Total cost of $24 billion. The habitat restoration and conservation measures were to be funded by $8 billion in general obligation (GO) bonds. The water supply reliability portion was projected to cost $15 billion, borne by the public water agencies that depend upon the SWP and CVP.
Costs: California EcoRestore is projected to cost $300 million over the next four years. These costs will come from Proposition 1 funds and other public dollars. California WaterFix’s water conveyance system is estimated to have the same $15 billion cost as was estimated in the BDCP.
Will California WaterFix have the exact same funding sources as the water conveyance system in the BDCP?
Analysis The new California WaterFix plan comes after federal agencies balked at the BDCP’s proposed 50-year-permit. The administration has emphasized that this new plan is prudent, science-driven and achievable while the BDCP was more of an “idea” or “desire” that was unlikely to get the money needed for over 100,000 acres of habitat restoration. As a more realistic approach, this plan is expected to generate more positive feedback from federal agencies. For Silicon Valley, the greatest benefit will be increased water supply reliability. Water exports from the Delta make up 40 percent of Silicon Valley’s water supply and are under constant risk of a major earthquake or flood, sea level rise and regulatory cut backs. By drawing water from the Sacramento River, before it ever enters the Delta, California WaterFix avoids many of these dangers. SVLG’s previously expressed support for the BDCP was largely based on its greater water supply reliability and this key element is maintained in California WaterFix. California EcoRestore will accelerate and implement a series of habitat restoration actions to support the long-term health of the Delta. As an independent project, California EcoRestore will be able to continue while the merits of the tunnel construction are evaluated separately. This change will allow the new intakes and pipelines to be assessed on their merits without stalling the habitat restoration that is critically needed for the Delta ecosystem. On the other hand, the direct linkage of these two goals in the BDCP was part of the effort to bridge the “fractured interests” of farmers, environmentalists, Delta landowners and Southern California citizens. Designating the project as a habitat conservation plan with a 50-year-permit gave water users paying for the project a greater sense of security. In separating the two goals of habitat restoration and water delivery, the new plan has been critiqued as a mere “water grab.” Many additionally claim that the commitment to coequal goals has now been broken with the introduction of the new plans, and that now the construction of the tunnels will go forward while the Delta’s health is relegated to a separate track. However, separating the two goals allows restoration efforts to begin immediately, as they are no longer contingent on the tunnels project. For a critically endangered ecosystem, immediate action is vital. While there is widespread agreement that the current status quo in the Delta is unsustainable, some groups have proposed alternatives including the improvement of existing levees or a downsized version of California WaterFix’s water conveyance system with a single tunnel. However, focusing solely on the levees would not improve water quality or the Delta’s ecosystem, and a single tunnel would mean no redundancy or backup in the event of that tunnel’s failure. SVLG’s support of California WaterFix is largely based on the resulting increase in water supply reliability and the lack of a viable alternative. Support California Chamber of Commerce, State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, IBEW, International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers Union of North America, California Citrus Mutual, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Kings County Bureau, Western Growers, Natural Heritage Institute, Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County, Calleguas Municipal Water District, Southern California Water Committee (SCWC), California State Conference NAACP, California Black and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Association of California Cities—Orange County, Kern County Taxpayer Association, American Council of Engineering Companies— California, California Alliance for Jobs, California Metals Coalition, Engineering Contractor’s Association, California Small Business Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Industry Association (CBIA), Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP), LA County Business Federation, San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership, Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA), Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business, Ventura County Economic Development Association Oppose Sierra Club California, Restore the Delta, California Water Impact Network, Planning and Conservation League, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Center for Biological Diversity, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Date: May 27, 2015
To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council
From: SVLG Environment Committee
Re: SB 471 (Pavley) – Water, energy, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: planning
Issue SB 471 focuses on quantifying the water-energy-climate nexus — the connection between the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from the energy used by our water system, to simultaneously advance solutions to climate change and drought. Position Recommendation Environment Committee Recommends Support. Summary SB 471 would direct the Air Resources Board, in cooperation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC), the state Water Resources Control Board, and the Department of Water Resources to develop a statewide GHG emissions inventory for water, using best available data. The bill would establish a program to create a variety of water projects to qualify for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Eligible projects could include precision agriculture, local water solutions that reduce energy-intensive water imports, clean energy generation at wastewater treatment facilities, leak detection, and water appliance efficiency. Background The California Energy Commission’s most recent data reveals that California’s water system accounts for almost 20% of the state’s total electricity consumption and 30% of non-power related natural gas consumed by the state
1. Additionally, according to an April 2015 report from the Union of
Concerned Scientists titled, Clean Energy Opportunities in California’s Water Sector, “The water sector uses electricity to pump, treat, transport, deliver, and heat water. And expected increases in groundwater pumping, water treatment, and water recycling mean the energy intensity of water will grow.” The report also states that, “Water and wastewater utilities access electricity by purchasing it from an electric utility or the wholesale market, by signing a contract with an independent generator, or by generating it themselves. Although the electricity purchased from electric utilities is governed by California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and must become cleaner over time, the electricity that water and wastewater utilities directly purchase or generate is not typically addressed by California’s climate and renewable energy policies.” State law requires electric utilities to disclose the sources of the electricity they sell; this requirement does not extend to water utilities that are not retail electricity providers. And although some water and wastewater utilities independently report the sources of their electricity, the information is not compiled in a standardized format or updated on a regular schedule across the water sector. Even in cases in which water utilities are required to submit power source disclosure forms, these forms combine electricity that they consume with electricity that is sold to other electricity providers. Thus, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the amount and type of electricity California’s water and wastewater utilities rely on and this information gap makes it difficult to understand how their electricity choices impact global warming emissions and the state’s efforts to decarbonize. Currently, state law requires electric utilities to disclose the sources of electricity they sell, yet this not extend to water utilities that are not retail electricity providers. While some water and wastewater utilities independently report their sources of electricity, the data is not documented or archived in a unified or scheduled manner.
1 Senate Environmental Quality. Apr. 27, 2015. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml#
Analysis Localized data remains sparse given the current state of water metering and lack of emissions information related to the water-energy nexus. SB 471 would require the necessary consistency and frequency of data documentation pertaining to energy usage for California’s water system in order to understand this usage and strategize how to minimize and progress with climate change mitigation. While some water-energy related climate pollution is already covered in the state’s cap-and-trade program by the electricity generation sector, water suppliers, treaters, distributors and end users currently lack the information and opportunity to do their part in advancing our climate and water conservation goals. As a result, a variety of projects that might reduce climate pollution from the water system do not currently qualify for project funding from the GGRF. SB 471 will ensure that project types that reduce emissions in furtherance of our state climate goals qualify for funding from the GGRF. Project types could include, but are not limited to precision agriculture, local water solutions that reduce energy-intensive water imports, clean energy generation at wastewater treatment facilities, leak detection, and water appliance efficiency. This bill further outlines that water recycling, wastewater treatment, water end-use efficiency, water technology improvements, best management practices, and other programs that reduce water system GHG emission be eligible for GGRF monies. Status Passed from Senate Environmental Quality on April 29, 7-0. Set for Senate Appropriations May 28. Fiscal impact SB 471 would help direct a portion of the state’s GGRF monies to those projects that reduce GHG emissions from California’s water system. Thus, this bill has no impact on the state’s General Fund. Support Sonoma County Water Agency, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, California League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, Coastal Environment Rights Foundation, Environmental Entrepreneurs, LA River Revitalization Corporation, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Mono Lake Committee, Nexus eWater, Sonoma County Water Agency, The Climate Registry, The Energy Coalition, The River Project, TreePeople, Union of Concerned Scientists, US Green Buildings Council, Water and Power Department, City of Pasadena, California Municipal Utilities Agency, California Coastkeeper Alliance (support if amended) Opposition None on file at this time.
May 28, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: Medi-Cal: Reimbursement: Provider Rates (AB 366 and SB 243)
Issue: There are two bills in the legislature, AB 366 (Bonta) and SB 243 (Hernandez), that
would repeal cuts to Medi-Cal provider reimbursement rates, require the Department of Health
Care to increase reimbursement rates for most outpatient providers (both fee-for-service and
Medi-Cal managed care providers) to Medicare levels and increase hospital Medi-Cal rates on a
one-time basis while requiring annual increases thereafter.
Committee Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the
Health Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
support AB 366 and SB 243. We will have an official committee position on June 2nd.
Background: The Medi-Cal program, operated by the Department of Health Care Services,
provides healthcare services to low-income individuals, families, and children. The San Jose
Mercury News reported in February 2015 that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) has dropped the percentage of uninsured Californians from 22 to 11 percent, largely due
to the 2.7 million Californians who enrolled in Medi-Cal. However, there are not enough doctors
willing to treat Medi-Cal patients, whom will make up one-third of the population in 2016. The
lack of willing doctors to treat Medi-Cal patients results largely from the low reimbursement
rates that the state provides.
In 2011, the Legislature passed AB 97 (Committee of Budgets), which reduced Medi-Cal
provider payments for fee-for-service (FFS) benefits and managed care plan rates by 10 percent
after June 1, 2011. These reductions did not apply to certain provider categories, including
hospital inpatient and outpatient services, critical access hospitals, federally qualified health
centers and hospices, services provided under Family PACT and payments funded by
intergovernmental transfers. These rate reductions, however, did include physician services to
adults, other health care providers (nurse practitioners, psychologists, podiatrists, optometrists,
physical therapists), blood banks, adult day care centers MSSP provider, medical transportation
providers, durable medical equipment, dental service provider, clinics, and pharmacy providers.
According to DHCS, the AB 97 reduction totaled $550 million ($275 million General Fund)
savings in 2015-2016.
AB 366 and SB 243 are two identical companion bills that would increase provider payment
rates in the Medi-Cal program in order to improve access to care for Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
Specifically, the bills would:
Repeal implementation of prior year Medi-Cal rate reductions, including the 10%
reduction in AB 97.
Increase FFS Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for specified medical services to the
amounts reimbursed by the federal Medicare program, and by a similar amount for dental
services. Requires actuarially equivalent increases for managed care.
Increase Medi-Cal hospital reimbursement rate for inpatient hospital services by 16% on
a one time basis and requires annual increases linked to the medical component of the
California consumer price index (CPI). Requires actuarially equivalent increases for
managed care.
Increase rates paid to Medi-Cal primary care providers upon expiration of the temporary
increases require by state and federal law.
Condition granting rate increases on compliance with applicable federal law and
regulation, availability of federal financial participation, and obtaining necessary federal
approvals.
Contain an urgency clause and will go immediately into effect.
Analysis: The intended purpose of AB 366 and SB 243 is to ensure Medi-Cal beneficiaries have
access to necessary medical services by ensuring that providers are paid at rates sufficient to
allow them to continue to see Medi-Cal patients. However, this bill will increase provider rates
across the board and the Senate Committee on Appropriations have suggested that it would be
more cost-effective to develop targeted incentive programs to encourage providers to increase
the share of Medi-Cal patients they are accepting. AB 366 and SB 243 will also continue the
increase rate pay for Medi-Cal primary care providers, which was implemented by the ACA for
2 years and set to expire on December 31, 2014.
There are wide gaps between Medi-Cal enrollees and other insured populations with respect to
access to care. A 2011 survey funded by the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) of over
1,500 Medi-Cal beneficiaries identified difficulties in finding health care providers who accept
their coverage, as 34 percent of Medi-Cal beneficiaries said it was difficult to find health care
providers who accept their insurance, compared to 13 percent for people with other coverage.
The survey found a higher percentage of adults with Medi-Cal say they have more difficulty
getting appointments with specialists and primary care providers than adults with other health
coverage. Additionally, employers often bear the burden for cost-shifting due to underfunded
providers.
Financial Impact: AB 366 and SB 243 would acquire annual costs of $11.1 billion per year in
total funds ($6.6 billion General Fund) due to increased payments to Medi-Cal providers in
2016-17 and growing annually thereafter.
Status: AB 366 was introduced to the Assembly on 2/17/2015, passed by the Health Committee
on 4/08/2015, and is currently re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
SB 243 was introduced in the Senate on 2/17/15, passed by the Health Committee on 4/15/2015
and is currently placed on the suspense file by the Committee of Appropriations.
Support for AB 366 & SB 243:
California Academy of Family Physicians (co-sponsor)
California Hospital Association (co-sponsor)
California Medical Association (co-sponsor)
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Association of Northern California Oncologists
California Academy of Audiology
California Ambulance Association
California Association of Health Facilities
California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians
California Children’s Hospital Association
California Commission of Aging
California Coverage and Health Initiatives
California Dental Association
California Healthcare Institute
California Labor Federation
California Medical Transportation Association
California Optometric Association
California Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
California School Employees Association
California Society of Anesthesiologists
Children Now
Children’s Defense Fund California
Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties
Da Vita Kidney Care
District Hospital Leadership Forum
Health Access California
Kaiser Permanente
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Maxim Healthcare Services
Medical Oncology Association of Southern California
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology
Occupational Therapy Association of California
Older Women’s League
Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California
Paramedics Plus
PICO California
Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo
Counties
Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund
Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley
Private Essential Access Community Hospitals
Rural County Representatives of California
SEIU-UHW
The Children’s Partnership
United Ways of California
Oppose for SB 243 and AB 366: None on file.
DATE: June 4, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Transportation Policy Committee
SUBJECT: AB 1096 (Chiu) – Electric Bikes.
ACTION
Consider taking a support position on AB 1096, which would clarify the definition of electric
motor-assisted bikes (e-bikes) and update the regulations to treat low-speed e-bikes as regular
bikes.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, the U. S. Congress passed Public Law 107-319 which exempts electric bicycles under 750
watts/20 mph from the definition of a motor vehicle only "For purposes of motor vehicle safety
standards...", which means that the manufacturers of these bicycles don't have to meet federal
equipment requirements, and are instead governed by the manufacturing requirements.
California, however, still has a state law that define “electric bicycle” as "motored bicycles" or
"mo-ped". Under the existing definition, e-bikes are subject to all the rules of the road, and
additional laws governing the operation and safety of electric bicycles. It's legally a bicycle, so
you can use it wherever and however you can use a bike - except on bicycle and pedestrian
paths that are posted to prohibit "motorized bicycles".
Electric bikes are gaining popularity among Californians who want to get the benefit from
exercising but may be discouraged from traditional bikes due to limitations in physical fitness,
age, disability or convenience. They enable people to have longer trips and get over steep hills.
The range of commuting distance on traditional bikes is 1-5 miles while the range for e-bikes is 5-
20 miles. Removing restrictions for e-bikes on most bike paths will encourage more people
switching from driving to cycling.
Earlier this year, Assemblymemeber David Chiu sponsored a new bill to redefine e-bikes and
update regulations of where e-bikes can be used.
The main content of SB 1096 includes:
Create three classifications of e-bikes:
o Class 1 for pedal-assist bikes, or “pedelecs” (pedal electric cycle), speed limited
to 20 miles per hour;
o Class 2 for bikes with throttles, speed limited to 20 miles per hour; and
o Class 3 for “speed” pedelecs, speed limited to 28 miles per hour.
Class 1 bikes could go wherever traditional bikes are allowed, while Class 2 bikes would
be limited to paved surfaces. Class 3 bikes would be restricted to roads or bikeways that
are adjacent to a road unless authorized by a local ordinance.
Authorize a local authority or governing body to prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of
class 1 or class 2 electric bicycles on specified paths or trails.
ANALYSIS
AB 1096 will enable a reexamination of the access restrictions imposed on users of these bikes in
order to permit more access to bicycle paths, where appropriate and safe. Opening up bike
paths to e-bikes will encourage broader use of bikes in the state. By eliminating ambiguity in the
regulations, AB 1096 will also abet the fast-growing electric bike industry in California. E-bikes use
green battery technology and would be an important addition to California’s growing energy-
efficient transportation system. These quiet and low-speed transportation devices also benefit
small business owners by providing a cost-effective alternative to cars and trucks when used for
equipment transport and deliveries.
The Leadership Group has supported promoting bicycles and environment friendly vehicles for
years. Cycling helps attract and retain a quality workforce. Many of our member companies
encourage their employees to bike to work. This bill will further help promote cycling as an
alternative to driving to commute. Staff recommends taking a support position on AB 1096.
The Transportation Policy Committee will be reviewing this bill on June 3rd.
SUPPORTERS
California Bicycle Coalition (Sponsor);
PeopleForBikes;
Bicycle Products Suppliers Association;
Specialized Bicycle Components;
Bosch;
Mahindra GenZe;
Currie Tech;
Felt Bicycles;
Shimano American Corporation;
Yuba Bicycles
OPPONENTS
None on record (as of 5/15/15)
DATE: June 4, 2015 TO: Working Council FROM: Land Use and Housing Committee ACTION: Support AB1056: Housing assistance for formerly incarcerated tenants. (Atkins)
Background: Individuals released from our state’s prisons and jails either find themselves homeless on their very first night out of a correctional institution or only being able to secure temporary housing. In large urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, 30% to 50% of parolees are homeless. The existing systems are fragmented and no particular agency or entity is responsible for helping secure housing for individuals leaving the state’s prisons and jails. The lack of available housing is considered as one of the most significant barriers to re-entry and a main driver of recidivism for the formerly incarcerated. The criminal history locks formerly incarcerated individual out of many state and federal programs that would otherwise help them in their situation. AB 1056 is part of Speaker Toni Atkins’ affordable housing package . The bill would authorize a public housing authority to create a housing support program to conduct a needs assessment for each prospective tenant to determine the level of services needed and length of assistance, and provide rapid rehousing services and rental assistance for a specified period and. It would also directs a portion of the savings from Proposition 47, which reduces some crime from felony to misdemeanor, toward providing evidence-based post-incarceration supportive rental assistance. The housing supports include, but are not limited to: (a) financial assistance, including rental assistance, security deposits, utility payments, moving cost assistance, and motel and hotel vouchers; (b) housing stabilization and relocation, including outreach and engagement, landlord recruitment, case management, housing search and placement, legal services, and credit repair; and (c) mental health, substance abuse, and employment services as indicated by individual needs assessments. Analysis: National research has shown that 25-50% of the homeless population has a history of incarceration. Exiting homelessness is daunting regardless of one’s criminal record. However, individuals with past incarceration face even greater barriers to exiting homelessness due to stigmatization, policies barring them from most federal housing assistance programs, and challenges finding employment due to their criminal records. To meet basic necessities with these barriers, previously incarcerated individuals sometimes engage in criminal activities to get by, perpetuating the cycle of homelessness, re-arrest, and incarceration. The Leadership Group has put the homelessness issue on the Work Plan 2015-2017. Our focus has been on the employment side --- establish homeless employment initiative to open up 250 jobs over three years at the Leadership Group member companies. However, the bill, which would provide housing assistance directly to previously incarcerated individuals, is a direct approach and will prevent homelessness. The Land Use and Housing Committee recommends a support position for the bill.
May 28, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Health Committee
SUBJECT: AB 1300 (Ridley-Thomas) – Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment
Issue: AB 1300 makes clarifying changes to better define the various steps of a 5150 detention
process to ensure consistent statewide application and that patients receive the most appropriate
care in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs.
Committee Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the
Health Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
support AB 1300. We will have an official committee position on June 2nd.
Background: The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, a California law governing involuntary
civil commitment for psychiatric treatment, was enacted in 1967. LPS developed a statutory
process under which individuals could be involuntarily held and treated in a mental health
facility in a manner that protected their constitutional rights. The LPS Act also sought to end
inappropriate lifetime commitment of people with mental illnesses.
Under existing law, when a person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to
himself or herself, or gravely disabled, he or she may, upon probable cause, be taken into
custody by a peace officer, member of the attending staff of an evaluation facility, designated
members of a mobile crisis team, or other designated professional person, and placed in a facility
designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services as a
facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.
The California Hospital Association reports that since the passage of the LPS Act, the changes in
the mental health delivery system has adversely impacted a patient’s ability to receive prompt
evaluation and treatment as required by the current law. Furthermore, California’s 58 counties
have fragmented and inconsistent application of the LPS Act, which has led to increasing
dependence on hospital emergency departments to care for mentally ill patients without the
necessary resources. This has resulted in individuals with mental illness waiting for hours, days
and sometimes even weeks for assessment and treatment.
AB 1300 seeks to modernize the LPS Act by standardizing the 72 hour hold process and easing
the transfer of psychiatric patients by appointed liaisons to move patients from emergency rooms
to psychiatric facilities and facilitating transportation between counties. Some key points of the
bill include:
Specifying that the period of 72-hour detention for evaluation and treatment begins at the
time the person is initially detained
Articulating when a 5150 stops, is discontinued, and who makes the decisions
Emphasizing prompt provision of services in LPS-designated and non-LPS designated
facilities
Prohibiting probable cause determination from considering the availability of beds or
services at designated facilities within or outside of the county
Prohibiting a peace officer or other authorized professional employee of an emergency
transport provider from being detained any longer than the time necessary to complete
documentation of the factual basis of the detention for evaluation and safely complete the
transfer of physical custody of the person
Analysis: In 2013, SB 364 (Steinberg) revised the law related to the 72 hour treatment and
evaluation for individuals with mental health disorders. SB 364 added to the types of facilities
that a county is allowed to designate to provide services to mental health disorder patients and
allowed county mental health directors to develop procedures to train professionals who detain,
evaluate and treat the patients subjected to Section 5150. AB 1300 would further expand and
clarify the LPS Act. Supporters of the bill contend that AB 1300 will define the steps of the 5150
detention process and will ensure that patient receive the most appropriate care in the least
restrictive environment. However, opponents of the bill are concerned that AB 1300 will result in
lower access to care for individuals with mental health disorders by limiting access to emergency
departments.
Financial Impact: The bill has been keyed fiscal but further analysis is not yet available.
Status: The bill was introduced to the Assembly on 2/27/2015 and passed both the Committee
on Health and the Judiciary Committee. AB 1300 is currently re-referred to the Appropriations
Committee.
Support:
California Hospital Association (co-sponsor)
California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (co-sponsor)
California Emergency Nurses Association (co-sponsor)
Alameda Health System
Antelope Valley Hospital
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Aurora Vista del Mar Hospital
California Medical Association
Citrus Valley Health Partners
Cottage Health System
Dignity Health
District Hospital Association
El Camino Hospital
Emergency Nurses Association
Fremont Hospital
Good Samaritan Hospital- Bakersfield
Good Samaritan Hospital- San Jose
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital
John Muir Health
Long Beach Memorial Hospital
Mad River Community Hospital
Madera Community Hospital
Mammoth Hospital
Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital Long Beach
Mission Community Hospital
O’Conner Hospital Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center
Pomona Valley Hospital
Redlands Community Hospital
Ridgecrest Regional Hospital
Saint Louise Regional Hospital
San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital
Sharp HealthCare
Sierra View Medical Center
Southwest Healthcare System
Stanford Health Care
White Memorial Medical Center
Oppose:
Consumer Attorneys of California
NAMI (National Alliance on Metal Illness) California (Oppose unless amended)
California State Association of Counties