BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 874
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 874 (Williams)
As Amended March 21, 2013
Majority vote
UTILITIES & COMMERCE 11-4 LABOR &
EMPLOYMENT 6-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bradford, Bonilla, |Ayes:|Roger Hern�ndez, Alejo, |
| |Buchanan, Fong, Garcia, | |Chau, Gomez, Gorell, |
| |Gorell, Roger Hern�ndez, | |Holden |
| |Quirk, Rendon, Skinner, | | |
| |Williams | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Patterson, Ch�vez, Beth |Nays:|Morrell |
| |Gaines, Jones | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) from
recovering certain expenses from ratepayers. Specifically, this
bill prohibits any expense incurred by an IOU in assisting or
deterring union organizing cannot be recoverable either directly
or indirectly in the utility's rates.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no direct state costs.
AB 874
Page 2
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement . "AB 874 amends the Public Utilities code
to prohibit a regulated utility from recovering from
ratepayers either directly or indirectly in rates any expense
incurred by a utility in assisting or deterring union
organizing activities, and establishes that these expenses
shall be borne exclusively by the shareholder of the utility.
"The Federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
permits states to adopt rules prohibiting electric utilities
from recovering from any person other than shareholders direct
and indirect expenditures for promotional or political
advertising.
"In 2000, AB 1889 by Assemblymember Cedillo was passed by the
legislature which prohibited state funds from being used to
assist or deter union organizing. This law was challenged in
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown and in 2008 the Supreme Court
held that the National Labor Relations Act preempted
California legislation that prohibited recipients of state
funds from using those funds to assist or deter union
organizing. The Court concluded that the private employers
were unfairly burdened by the requirements to provide detailed
accounting of their funds and was unfair because the law
effectively favored pro-union activities by exempting certain
expenditures, and therefore amounted to an impermissible state
regulation of labor relations. These circumstances DO NOT
apply in AB 874 because utilities are already required to
provide detailed accounting and segregation of funds to the
CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission], and therefore
no extra burden applies. Moreover, unlike the previous
California statute, AB 874 does not treat pro and anti-union
organizing activities differently, and therefore provides no
unfair advantages."
2)Need for the bill . This bill will ensure that any expenses
incurred by an IOU in assisting or deterring union
organization shall not be recoverable from ratepayers.
3)Neutral on unions . This bill is neutral on union
representation campaigns. This bill ensures that ratepayer
funds cannot be used to assist or deter union organizing.
AB 874
Page 3
4)Federal prohibitions . The Federal Public Utilities Regulatory
Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 (as amended by Public Law 111-5,
Enacted February 17, 2009) establishes rules, among other
things, that prohibit an electric utility from recovering
ratepayer funds for any direct or indirect expenditures for
promotional or political advertising. (Section 113 (b)(5))
Analysis Prepared by : Susan Kateley / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
FN: 0000557