EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, January 15, 2021 12:30 p.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF WILL ATTEND VIA TELECONFERENCE

Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 and the Alameda County Health Officer’s current Shelter in Place Order, effective March 31, 2020, the East Bay Regional Park District (“Park District”) Headquarters will not be open to the public and the Board Legislative Committee and staff will be participating in the meetings via phone/video conferencing.

Members of the public can listen to the meeting via the Park District’s YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/zc0xC3beNDU

Public comments may be submitted one of three ways: 1. Live via zoom. If you would like to make a live public comment during the meeting this option is available through the virtual meeting platform: https://ebparks.zoom.us/j/91082187274 Note, this virtual meeting platform link will let you into the virtual meeting for the purpose of providing a public comment. If you do not intend to make a public comment, please use the YouTube link at observe the meeting. It is https://youtu.be/zc0xC3beNDU preferred that those requesting to speak during the meeting contact the Legislative Committee Assistant by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 14, 2021 via email at [email protected] or voicemail (510) 544-2400 to provide name and the subject line public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item #. 2. Via email to recording secretary [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. Thursday, January 14, 2021. Email must contain in the subject line public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item # followed by their name and place of residence, followed by their comments. 3. Via voicemail at 510-544-2002 by 4:00 p.m. Thursday, January 14, 2021. The caller must start the message by stating public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item# followed by their name and place of residence, followed by their comments.

Comments received during the meeting and up until the public comment period on the relevant agenda item is closed, will be provided in writing to the Board Legislative Committee, included transcribed voicemails. All comments received by the close of the public comment period will be available after the meeting as supplemental materials and will become part of the official meeting record. Please try to limit your written comments to no more than 300 words. The Park District cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the Park District receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.

If you have any questions about utilizing the video stream, please contact the Assistant of the Committee, Yulie Padmore, at [email protected] or at 510-544-2002. To ensure the best opportunity for Park District staff to address your question, please contact the Assistant prior to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 14, 2020.

The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors.

A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.

Accommodations and Access District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 510-544-2020 as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the meeting.

AGENDA

TIME ITEM STATUS STAFF

12:30 I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION – RECOMMENDED BILLS FOR R Victor/Pfuehler SUPPORT 1. AB 11 (Ward D-San Diego) – Regional Climate Change Coordinating Groups 2. AB 50 (Boerner Horvath D-Encinitas) – Regional Support Network for Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise 3. AB 51(Quirk D-Hayward) – Establishment of Regional Adaptation Plans 4. AB 52 (Frazier D-Discovery Bay) – Account for Wildfire Emissions in Greenhouse Gas Fund Allocations 5. AB 67(Petrie-Norris D-Laguna Beach) – Sea Level Rise Adaptation Economic Analysis 6. SB 1 (Atkins D-San Diego) – California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Planning 7. SB 27 (Skinner D-Berkeley) – California Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resiliency Project Registry 8. SB 45 (Portantino D-La Cañada Flintridge) – Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation and Flood Protection Bond 9. SB 63 (Stern D-Los Angeles) – Defensible Space Standards

B. OTHER STATE MATTERS I Victor/Pfuehler 1. State Budget 2. Governor’s Task Force to Reduce Wildfire Risk, Improve Health of Forests and Wildlands 3. State Legislative and Government Affair Priorities – Sacramento Meetings 4. Nuisance Abatement Legislation Update 5. Other Matters

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION – RECOMMENDED BILLS FOR R Victor/Pfuehler SUPPORT 1. H.R. 159 (Sires D-NJ) – Investments in Parks

B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS I Victor/Pfuehler 1. FY 2021 Federal Funding Agreement and Covid-19 Relief Funding 2. Additional Biden Administration Appointments 3. Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) Federal Transportation Grant Update 4. Land and Water Conservation Fund / Great America Outdoors Act 5. Other Matters

III. ARTICLES & OTHER MEDIA

IV. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.

V. BOARD COMMENTS

(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information Future Meetings: (D) Discussion January 15 July 16 February 19 August – NO MTG Legislative Committee Members March – NO MTG September 17 Ayn Wieskamp (Chair); Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, April 13 October 15 Elizabeth Echols (Alternate) May 14 November – NO MTG Erich Pfuehler, Chief of Government and Legislative Affairs June 18 *December 10 Lisa Baldinger, Legislative and Policy Management Analyst

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Ayn Weiskamp, Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, alt. Elizabeth Echols)

FROM: Carol Victor, Interim General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, January 15, 2021 12:30 PM

WHERE: Members of the public can listen to the meeting in the following way: Via the Park District’s live audio stream, on the Park District’s YouTube channel, which can be found at: https://youtu.be/zc0xC3beNDU or join the meeting via Zoom at https://ebparks.zoom.us/j/91082187274

______

Items to be discussed:

I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BILLS FOR SUPPORT 1. AB 11 (Ward D-San Diego) – Regional Climate Change Coordinating Groups This bill requires California’s Strategic Growth Council to establish up to twelve regional climate change coordinating groups aimed at developing and working on climate adaptation for their communities by January 2023. If enacted, the District could apply to become a participant in one of the twelve regional climate adaptation planning groups.

The bill suggests regional climate change coordinating groups can engage in activities to address climate change which include, but are not limited to, any of the following: • Planning to address sea level rise and its effect on local infrastructure. • Reducing energy consumption. • Coordinating and implementing energy efficiency projects. • Increasing efficiency of water use. • Utilizing carbon sequestration opportunities. • Administering grants to local entities. • Measuring and quantifying ongoing greenhouse gas reduction efforts.

At this time, the District is participating in many of these activities through initiatives such as the San Francisco Bay Trail Risk Assessment and Adaptation Prioritization Plan (RAAPP) which is reviewing sea level rise effects on infrastructure. The Shadow Cliff’s solar project increases use by the District of clean, renewable energy. Continued acquisition and permanent protection of new District lands preserve not only habitat, but also offer carbon sequestration opportunities.

2. AB 50 (Boerner Horvath D-Encinitas) – Regional Support Network for Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise This bill would establish the Climate Adaptation Center and Regional Support Network within the Ocean Protection Council. The Center would provide local governments, like

1

the District, with the information and scientific expertise necessary to proceed with sea level rise mitigation.

The services provided would include the following: • Provide technical support and information to local governments about adapting to climate change impacts, including sea level rise. • Connect practitioners undertaking adaptation work with state policy and guidance, useable scientific information and technical assistance which is accessible and applicable. • Address local governments’ frequently expressed need for a point person to answer questions and provide real-world advice, guidance, expertise and examples about how to proceed with adaptation work. • Establish formal partnerships with universities in the state to provide local governments with the latest scientific information regarding impacts of climate change.

As an agency with 55 miles of protected Bay-Delta shoreline, this legislation would further support the District’s implementation of projects with the best available science.

3. AB 51 (Quirk D-Hayward) – Establishment of Regional Adaptation Plans This bill is a partner bill to AB 11. This bill directs the Strategic Growth Council to develop criteria for the development of regional climate adaptation plans. A regional climate adaptation plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: • Key regional priorities for the full range of vulnerabilities to climate change. • Regional vulnerability assessment. • Development of adaptation strategies. • Meaningful public participation and involvement in the development of the plan.

In alignment with the District’s continued climate work, key focus areas of the regional climate adaptation plans will include wildfire protection, invasive pest management, human health and impacts of sea level rise.

4. AB 52 (Frazier D-Discovery Bay) – Account for Wildfire Emissions in Greenhouse Gas Fund Allocations The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) established the state’s cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gas emissions. Revenue raised by the sale of credits is placed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and allocated annually by formula. The formula continuously appropriates 35% of the annual proceeds of the fund for transit, affordable housing and sustainable communities programs. Another 25% of the annual proceeds are allocated to high-speed rail. The remaining formula is determined by the legislature. The 2006 legislation requires a re-examination of 40% of the formula every five years through a cross-departmental scoping plan process. This bill would ensure the emissions of greenhouse gases and black carbon from wildfires are accounted for in the scoping plan. It would also express the intent of the Legislature to appropriate an amount from the GGRF for wildfire mitigation and prevention.

5. AB 67 (Petrie-Norris D-Laguna Beach) – Sea Level Rise Adaptation Economic Analysis This bill would require state agencies to take into account the current and future impacts of sea level rise when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining and investing in

2

infrastructure located in the coastal zone or otherwise vulnerable to flooding from sea level rise or storm surges. Examples would include airports, rail lines, streets and highways, pipelines, wastewater treatment plants, schools, hospitals and other facilities.

The bill establishes a multiagency working group to recommend policies, resolutions, projects and other actions to address sea level rise. The working group would consist of the following: • The Executive Director of the Ocean Protection Council, who would serve as the chair. • One or more representatives from the Office of Planning and Research. • One or more representatives from the Strategic Growth Council. • One or more representatives from the California Coastal Commission. • One or more representatives from the State Coastal Conservancy. • One or more representatives from the State Water Resources Control Board. • One person, appointed by the Governor, from an academic institution who has expertise in climate change projections and impacts across California.

The working group would establish a standardized methodology and template for economic analysis of projects in areas of risk. They would develop a site-specific resilience plan and identify actions to proect infrastructure. These plans would be included in the Strategic Growth Council’s review of infrastructure every five years.

6. SB 1 (Atkins D- San Diego) – Californial Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Planning This bill would enact a comprehensive sea level rise program in state government. It directs the California Coastal Commission to take into account sea level rise in its planning, policies and activities. It establishes a new California Sea Level Rise State and Regional Support Collaborative, similar to AB 50, overseen by the Secretaries of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection agencies. It also establishes funding for local governments and communities to plan for and mitigate sea level rise. The funding would be no more than $100 million annually to update local and regional land use plans to account for sea level rise. Funds can be used for investments directly related to implementing local and regional plans.

7. SB 27 (Skinner D-Berkeley) – California Carbon Sequestraion and Climate Resiliency Project Registry This bill would require the Natural Resources Agency, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency, to establish carbon sequestration goals for natural and working lands. This bill would require the office maintain a registry called the California Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resiliency Project Registry. The Registry is for projects seeking funding from state agencies or private entities. The bill would require a process for listing projects on the registry. The bill would also require the office to establish a mechanism for removing projects from the registry once funded and for tracking the outcomes of those projects. Projects will be aligned with the state’s greenhouse gas emission goals. The District could choose to apply to have future projects listed on the registry.

8. SB 45 (Portantino D-La Canada Flintridge) – Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation and Flood Protection Bond

3

The District supported SB 45, the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020 last session. The 2022 Bond Act is $5.51 billion with the following allocations: Chapter 2 – $2.2 billion for wildfire, drought or other natural disaster prevention a in light of climate change impacts. Chapter 3 – $1.47 billion for providing safe drinking water, protecting water supply and water quality. Chapter 4 – $620 million for protecting fish and wildlife. Chapter 5 – $190 million for protecting agricultural land. Chapter 6 – $970 million for protecting coastal lands, oceans, bays, waters, natural resources and wildlife. Chapter 7 – $60 million for climate resilience, workforce development and education.

The District has identified a number of subcategories within the proposed bond which would be beneficial. Including: Chapter 2: • $175 million to the Office of Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, for a pre-hazard mitigation grant program. • $280 million to the Natural Resources Agency to reduce the risk of wildfire spreading into populated areas from wildlands, and to improve forest health and fire resiliency. • $300 million to the Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of the Regional Fire and Forest Capacity Program to fund coordinated and integrated regional approaches to the restoration of watersheds, reduction in the conditions which lead to catastrophic wildfire and the protection of natural resources throughout California. • $50 million for State Parks to reduce the risks of flooding and sea level rise. Chapter 3: • $250 million to the Natural Resources Agency for the protection and restoration of rivers, lakes and streams to improve climate resilience, water supplies, water quality and other benefits. • $240 million to the Natural Resources Agency for the protection and restoration of urban streams and river parkways to improve climate resilience, water supplies, water quality and other benefits. • $50 million multi-benefit flood management projects in urban coastal watersheds. Chapter 4: • $600 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the protection of California’s fish and wildlife resources, as well as for restoration and stewardship projects. Chapter 6: • $100 million to the State Coastal Conservancy for projects that are consistent with the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act. • $700 million for projects identified by the State Coastal Conservancy. Chapter 7: • $30 million for the California Conservation Corps. • $5 million to California Community Colleges for wildfire management training.

9. SB 63 (Stern D-Los Angeles) – Defenseible Space Standards This bill would strengthen California’s defensible space laws which currently require a person who owns, leases, controls, operates or maintains an occupied dwelling or structure

4

in a very high fire hazard severity zone to maintain a defensible space of 100 feet. Senator Stern’s bill would require a person described above to use more intense fuel reductions between 5 and 30 feet around the structure, and to create a five-foot “ember-resistant zone” around homes in high fire risk areas. During wildfires, most homes are destroyed by embers which can travel miles ahead of the flames and ignite flammable objects on or near a home. The bill directs the State Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Director of Housing and Community Development, to update building standards to reduce fire risk. The bill establishes a local assistance grant program for fire prevention and home hardening education. Grants can also be used for vegetation management along roadways and emergency equipment. The District would be eligible to apply for these grants.

B. OTHER STATE MATTERS 1. State Budget On January 8, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom submitted his 2021-22 State Budget proposal to the Legislature. The proposed $227.2 billion budget contains a number of provisions to address Covid-19 including $372 million to speed up administration of vaccines. The state is operating with a $15 billion surplus. Much of the increases in this budget are one-time expenditures. The budget also allocates significant funding to reserves and paying down liabilities.

The Natural Resources Agency’s budget is at $7.4 billion. This includes $82 million to improve access to parks. Highlights include: • $20 million in one-time money for deferred maintenance. • $12.7 million for the Youth Community Access Grant Program. • $12.6 million for high-priority inholding acquisitions. • $85 million in one-time money for forest management at state parks. • $9.8 million in one-time money for improving wetland habitat. • $7 million in one-time money for human-wildlife conflict.

The budget includes $1 billion for forest health activities. This includes $143.3 million in one-time funding, $124.5 million in ongoing funding for additional CAL FIRE crews. In addition, there is $24.2 million for capital outlay costs for CAL FIRE and the California Conservation Corps (CCC) to support 30 additional fire crews, including 16 seasonal firefighter crews and 14 CCC crews. The budget includes $48.4 million for new firefighting aircraft for CAL FIRE.

The budget includes a $14 billion investment in state economic recovery. It provides a direct payment of $600 to Californians who most need relief, extends new protections and funding to help keep people in their homes, and invests in relief grants for small businesses. It includes $777.5 million for a California Jobs Initiative, which focuses on job creation and retention, regional development, small businesses and climate innovation. There is also $300 million for deferred maintenance and greening of state infrastructure.

The budget invests $90 billion in schools, including $2 billion to support and accelerate safe returns to in-person instruction, $4.6 billion to help students mend from the impacts of the pandemic and $400 million for school-based mental health services.

5

The Budget reflects $34 billion in budget resiliency – budgetary reserves and discretionary surplus – including: $15.6 billion in the Proposition 2 Budget Stabilization Account (Rainy Day Fund) for fiscal emergencies; $3 billion in the Public School System Stabilization Account; an estimated $2.9 billion in the state’s operating reserve; and $450 million in the Safety Net Reserve.

The Budget continues progress in paying down the state’s retirement liabilities and reflects $3 billion in additional payments required by Proposition 2 in 2021-22 and nearly $6.5 billion over the next three years. In addition, the improved revenue picture allows the state to delay $2 billion in scheduled program suspensions for one year.

2. Governor’s Task Force to Reduce Wildfire Risk, Improve Health of Forests and Wildlands Following the most destructive wildfire season in California’s recorded history, the Governor’s Forest Management Task Force issued on January 8th a comprehensive action plan to reduce wildfire risk for vulnerable communities, improve the health of forests and wildlands, and accelerate action to combat climate change.

The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan sets a broadly supported strategy to increase the pace and scale of forest and wildland management to meet the state’s target of completing projects on 500,000 acres annually by 2025 and expanding the use of prescribed fire, particularly on state-owned lands. The plan calls for achieving these goals largely through regional strategies tailored to the environmental conditions, risks and priorities in each area.

The plan also centers on building a large network of fuel breaks around vulnerable communities, expanding home hardening, defensible space and preparedness planning to create wildfire-adapted communities, and sustaining the economic vitality of rural forested areas.

Actions outlined in the plan align with a $1 billion investment included in the Governor’s proposed 2021-2022 budget. This proposed funding would advance key priorities, including $323 million in early actions to protect communities, reduce risk of large, catastrophic wildfires and jumpstart economic recovery in rural communities.

Wildfires burned over 4 million acres across California in 2020, more than the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons combined. Hotter, drier conditions in the state’s forests driven by climate change and the consequences of a century-old legacy of fire suppression have disrupted natural wildfire behavior. These conditions have generated unparalleled risk of catastrophic wildfire across landscapes from coastal redwoods to chaparral and oak woodlands.

The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan builds on the Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forest and Rangelands signed last summer by Governor Newsom and U.S. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen. The agreement calls for a science-based, long-term strategy to reduce wildfire risks, restore watersheds, protect habitat and biological diversity and help the state meet its climate objectives.

6

The action plan is the product of a two-year collaborative effort and aligns the state’s strategy with other federal, local, tribal, regional and private organizations. It also links the state’s wildfire resilience programs to its climate, biodiversity and economic development goals.

The Governor’s budget supports proposed investments in key action plan priorities: • $512 million to increase landscape scale resilience in forests and natural landscapes, including through increased use of prescribed fire, and funding for tribes and small landowners. • $335 million to complete at least 45-60 strategic fuel break projects each year over the next several years, and grants to support local wildfire plans and projects. • $38 million to harden and protect fire-vulnerable communities. • $39 million to ensure predictive models and investments in wildfire resilience are based on the best available science. • $76 million to expand economic and job opportunities through the Climate Catalyst Fund’s low-interest lending program, the California Conservation Corps workforce programs, and forest management job training. Federal, local, regional and non-governmental organization representatives voiced support for the action plan and the collaboration it represents.

3. State Legislative and Government Affairs Priorities – Sacramento Meetings Staff wil review the issues and asks for the Zoom meetings in Sacramento with legislators on January 25 and 27.

4. Nuisance Abatement Legislation Update Staff and advocates are working to have legislation authored this session to ensure Public Resources Code (PRC) 5500 Park Districts have adequate legal tools to prevent unauthorized uses of their lands. Currently, PRC 5500 does not spefically authorize the Park District to abate and recover costs when protecting parkland from encroachments and other public nuisances. Currently, the District must work through county District Attorneys to asddess encroachments. District Attorneys are typically more focused on addressing issues within their urban service areas rather than on Park District lands. As a consequence, it can take years for the District to properly address a nuisance.

A proposed legislative fix would be to give Park Districts public nuisance abatement power within the PRC 5500, similar to a city’s or county’s abilities. The proposed legislation would give a Park District the following powers: 1) the ability to declare by ordinance what constitutes a public nuisance; 2) explicit authority to abate those public nuisances by either administrative and/or civil actions; and 3) recover its costs incurred abating those public nuisances, including attorneys’ fees.

Having the full set of options to address illegal encroachments which cities and counties have, in particular the ability to administratively abate and recover costs, would give Park Districts the necessary tools to efficiently protect the parks and open spaces they are responsible for operating and maintaining, without initiating a costly and lengthy civil or criminal action in the courts.

7

This statewide bill applies only to four independent special districts listed below. Dependent districts enabled under Public Resources Code Section 5500 may already utilize county powers of nuisance abatement. 1. East Bay Regional Park District 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District 4. Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District

5. Other Matters

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BILLS FOR SUPPORT 1. H.R. 159 (Sires D-NJ) – Investments in Parks Representative Albio Sires (D-NJ) is introducing legislation directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to support communities investing in parks. The program would enable communities to better leverage resources to address health, economic development and conservation concerns. It would specifically target investing in parks, recreational areas, facilities and programs.

B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS 1. FY 2021 Federal Funding Agreement and Covid-19 Relief Funding The $1.4 trillion fiscal year 2021 omnibus appropriations bill includes increases to non- defense spending alongside small increases for defense-related programs. In addition to the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills, the spending package contains $900 billion in emergency coronavirus relief. Some highlights are:

• Increases non-defense spending by $12.5 billion above the budget caps. • Supports better schools, with $16.5 billion for Education aimed at Disadvantaged Grants to Local Educational Agencies, an increase of $227 million above the FY 2020 enacted level. • $12.9 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Special Education Grants to States, an increase of $173 million above the FY 2020 enacted level. • Expands access to housing, providing $43.4 million in new targeted vouchers to reduce homelessness among families with children, individuals, the unsheltered, veterans and survivors of domestic violence. • Tackles food insecurity, with full funding for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), child nutrition programs, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). • Builds safer communities, with $25 million split evenly for federal research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) into the nation’s gun violence epidemic, as well as $85 million for grants to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) firearms background check system, $6.7 million above the FY 2020 enacted level. • Protects the environment, with $9.24 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure clean air and water and to hold polluters accountable. This is a $180 million increase. • Combats climate change, by providing $2.86 billion for Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $72 million above FY 2020.

8

• $427 million for Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) to support the development of clean, affordable and secure energy, $2 million above FY 2020. • $7.026 billion for Department of Energy’s Office of Science to support energy innovation for the future, $26 million above FY 2020. • $182 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Research, $12.5 million above FY 2020. • Strengthens rural communities, with more than $730 million to expand broadband service to provide economic development opportunities, improved education and healthcare services. • Fights for a more humane immigration approach, reducing funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s aggressive detention and removal activities by $431 million below the fiscal year 2020 level. • Provides $90 billion for Veterans Affairs medical care, including homelessness assistance, suicide prevention and outreach and gender-specific care. • Bolsters international security and stability, by providing $50 million for the new Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Fund, which supports people-to- people exchanges and economic partnerships between Israelis and Palestinians.

The $900 billion Covid-19 relief package was attached to the $1.4 trillion FY 2021 appropriations omnibus bill and also includes additional sought-after provisions. The bill is significantly less than the $2 trillion plus economic recovery bill passed in the House, but does push past the $500 billion bill that most Republicans preferred. Democrats hope to pass additional stimulus and pandemic aid in the 117th Congress. Here are some key provisions in the bill: • $82 billion for grade schools and colleges to help them reopen classrooms and prevent virus transmission. • $22 billion to states for testing, tracing and Covid-19 mitigation programs. • $20 billion for the purchase of vaccines and therapeutics, and $8 billion to CDC and states for vaccine distribution. • $20 billion in extra Federal relief for health-care providers. • $166 billion for a second round of stimulus checks set at $600 per individual who qualified for the $1,200 checks the first time. $600 will be available per child for a family. The income phaseout will be similar to the first round from $75,000 to $99,000 for individuals. • $120 billion for unemployment insurance. There will be $300 in weekly enhanced Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits for 11 weeks. Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), which extends unemployment benefits for up to 13 weeks, will also both be extended 11 weeks after it was set to expire December 26th. • $325 billion in additional small business support including $284 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Some businesses are eligible for a second round of the PPP and there are provisions to aid independent restaurants specifically. $15 billion for live venues, independent movie theaters and cultural institutions. There also is $20 billion for targeted Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Grants. There is also a technical fix to the CARES Act explicitly stating businesses can deduct expenses which were paid for by PPP funds, something the Treasury and IRS previously prohibited.

9

• Business meal tax deduction-100 percent tax deduction of business meals for two years. • Covid-19 tax provisions - Extension and expansion of the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC). - Extension of a payroll tax subsidy for employers offering workers paid sick leave. - Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) will be based on 2019 income. • $20 billion in additional aid for healthcare providers. • $10 billion of grants for child care providers. • $13 billion of direct support for farmers. • $13 billion in increased SNAP and child nutrition benefits. • $25 billion in emergency rental assistance and the extension of the federal eviction moratorium through January. • $7 billion in broadband funding. • $15 billion to extend payroll support for passenger airlines. • $14 billion for transit. • $10 billion for state highways. • $2 billion for private motor coaches, buses and ferries. • $2 billion for airports and airport concessionaires. • $1 billion for airline contractor payroll support • $1 billion for Amtrak. • States, counties and large cities will receive a one-year extension to spend unused aid from the CARES Act, a deadline that was originally set for the end of 2020. • The Federal Reserve emergency lending facilities for mid-sized businesses and state and local governments from the CARES Act will not get further funding without Congressional approval and unspent funds will be returned to the Treasury.

2. Additional Biden Administration Appointments Advocate Umhofer will report about President-Elect Biden’s key appointments for Federal agencies. Current known appointees of interest to the District are: Secretary of the Interior – Deb Haaland Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency – Michael Regan Secretary of Transportation – Pete Buttigieg Secretary of Agriculture – Tom Vilsack Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Denis McDonough Chairperson, Council on Environmental Quality – Brenda Mallory Special Presidential Envoy on Climate – John Kerry National Climate Advisor – Gina McCarthy Secretary of Health and Human Services – Xavier Becerra Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Dr. Rochelle Walensky Secretary of Energy – Jennifer Granholm

3. Better Utilizing Invetment to Leverage Development (BUILD) Federal Transportation Grant Update Government Affairs staff and Advocate Peter Umhofer will provide a verbal update about the ongoing effort to apply for a BUILD grant.

10

4. Land and Water Conservation Fund / Great America Outdoors Act Advoate Umhofer will provide a verbal update about the implementation of Public Law 116- 152 which provided, among other items, full permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Act at $900 million annually.

5. Other Matters

III. ARTICLES

IV. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT

VI. BOARD COMMENTS

11

Board Legislative Committee January 15, 2021 – Articles and Other Media

Contra Costa County to hire first woman, Latinx administrator Her predecessor is retiring

By SHOMIK MUKHERJEE | [email protected] | PUBLISHED: December 2, 2020 at 12:35 p.m. | UPDATED: December 3, 2020 at 1:11 p.m. Contra Costa County’s new administrator will be the first woman and Latinx person to hold the position in the county’s 171-year history.

The board of supervisors is scheduled to appoint Monica Nino to the top staff job at a meeting next Tuesday. Current administrator David Twa will retire from his position at the end of this year and plans to return to his home state of Minnesota.

Nino, who has served as the administrator of San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, said in an interview that her focus from the start will be on health care.

“In San Joaquin County, we’re probably one of the smallest counties with a hospital that also has a trauma center,” Nino said. “Whether you’re in a recession or a positive economic time, health care is not an inexpensive service for government to deliver.”

She noted that Contra Costa County’s government has a larger budget than San Joaquin or Stanislaus counties. But Nino said her experience navigating high unemployment numbers in the latter two counties will help her bring forth solutions in Contra Costa.

“We’ll be looking at how can we more effectively distribute services so underserved populations can gain a level out of poverty or unemployment, and so they can provide a greater home for themselves and their families,” Nino said.

The starting base pay for the county administrator is over $345,000, according to county documents.

In 2019, Twa made over $517,000 including total pay and benefits, according to Transparent California. His base pay was around $361,000. Twa joined Contra Costa County in 2008 after serving as a county attorney in Minnesota. He didn’t respond to a request for comment on this story.

Nino will bring a “strong financial background and a commitment to diversity, equity and justice for underserved populations,” Supervisor John Gioia said in an interview. “The county is a social safety net,” Gioia said. “(Nino) worked her way up from a relatively entry- level position to county administrator in Stanislaus. She understands the full range of county services.”

Supervisor Candace Andersen, the current board chair, said Nino’s financial experience and good communication skills will help the county navigate funding for services between its departments.

While the county will have spent much of its CARES Act funding on coronavirus relief by the end of the year, Andersen said it will be vital for the new hire to handle the county’s $3.5 billion budget wisely amid the ongoing pandemic.

“This isn’t the time to bring in someone with a steep learning curve,” Andersen said. “We need someone who can step right in and carry us forward.” Monica Nino (contributed)

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra emerges as contender to lead Health and Human Services

By Jeff Zeleny, Senior Washington Correspondent Updated 3:53 PM ET, Fri December 4, 2020

In this June 22, 2016, file photo, then-Rep. Xavier Becerra speaks to members of the media on Capitol Hill. (CNN)California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has emerged as a key contender to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, two people familiar with the matter say, as President- elect Joe Biden weighs who to tap for a role that will be critical to his administration's efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

The HHS secretary position has been a source of intrigue and confusion this week, with New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo being mentioned as contenders. Raimondo has said she's no longer a candidate and Lujan Grisham's status is now unclear.

But on Friday people close to the matter said Becerra has emerged as a "contender of interest" for the post. He is also a top candidate for attorney general. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has also been mentioned as a potential pick to lead Health and Human Services, but the sources said she is being eyed for other posts as well.

A transition official declined to comment. News of Becerra's emergence comes as Biden faces increasing pressure to deliver on his promise to build out a diverse Cabinet. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has said it wants Lujan Grisham to be Biden's HHS secretary and has pushed Biden to select Becerra or Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez as attorney general. Members of the caucus expressed frustration in a meeting with leaders of Biden's transition team on Thursday over how they believe Lujan Grisham has been treated in the Cabinet selection process.

close di alog Incoming White House press secretary Jen Psaki said earlier Friday that the transition team will announce key members of the President-elect's health team early next week.

"You will be hearing more about the President-elect and the vice president-elect's team early next week and about their health team early next week -- and I would also just reiterate that there will be more to come after that," Psaki said.

CNN reported Thursday that Jeffrey Zients is expected to be tapped as White House coronavirus coordinator. Zients, a top economic adviser under President Barack Obama and a co-chair of Biden's transition team, is credited with reviving the Obamacare enrollment website, Healthcare.gov, which had been plagued with issues and crashed shortly after its launch in 2013.

Biden told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview on Thursday that he had asked Dr. Anthony Fauci to stay on in his role as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and to serve as a chief medical adviser to his administration.

CNN's Sarah Mucha contributed to this story.

Five worrying takeaways from Friday's U.S. jobs report

By Dan Burns 3 M I N R E A D

(Reuters) - Friday’s big monthly U.S. payrolls report was a big disappointment, with roughly half the number of jobs created in November as were forecast by economists in a Reuters poll.

FILE PHOTO: People line up outside a Kentucky Career Center hoping to find assistance with their unemployment claim in Frankfort, Kentucky, U.S. June 18, 2020. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston/File Photo/File Photo

But the troublesome signs for the labor market were hardly limited to the underwhelming headline number, which showed the weakest job growth since the recovery began from the swoon induced by the COVID-19 outbreak earlier this year.

Here are five worrying factors in the report: HOUSEHOLD VS ESTABLISHMENT: WHO IS RIGHT?

The report is fueled by two surveys - one of U.S. businesses and one of American households. The so-called “establishment” data on total employment from businesses is much less noisy than the household results, but more often than not the two at least move in the same direction.

In November they did not. Businesses reported adding 245,000 jobs last month, but households reported employment fell by 74,000. It was the first negative print in that series since the historic dive in employment in April.

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION LAGGING

Some 400,000 fewer people reported being a member of the work force in November, the third drop in the last five months.

One sign of a healthy labor market is a consistently growing labor force - those employed and those in the market for a job. After an initial bounce back in May and June, the labor force has moved sideways since and remains more than 4 million short of what it was before the pandemic struck. MORE DISCOURAGED WORKERS

One reason people cite for dropping out of the work force is that they are too discouraged by the state of the job market to look for work. The ranks of these workers are back near the five-year high reached in July after having grown in November for the third straight month and by the most since June. Graphic: Discouraged worker ranks are rising again -

PERMANENT JOB LOSSES RISING

When the pandemic first struck and triggered more than 20 million job losses in a single month back in April, the vast majority of those thrown out of work expected their layoffs to be temporary. That dynamic has changed.

In November, more than 4.7 million people were categorized as “not on temporary layoff” - meaning their job was permanently eliminated or they had completed a temporary job that was not extended. That is nearly 2 million more than those counted as being temporarily out of work and was the highest level in seven years.

UNEMPLOYMENT DURATION IS GROWING LONGER FOR MANY

In February, just before the coronavirus pandemic broadsided the economy and job market along with it, fewer than 20% of the 5.8 million people then counted as unemployed had been out of work for 27 weeks or longer.

Fast forward to November and nearly 37% of the 10.7 million jobless Americans had not worked in roughly half a year or longer. That percentage is the highest since December 2013.

Reporting by Dan Burns; Editing by Andrea Ricci

More record highs for stocks as hopes grow for economic aid By STAN CHOE and ALEX VEIGADecember 4, 2020

The New York Stock Exchange is seen in New York, Monday, Nov. 23, 2020. U.S. stocks are ticking higher and heading back toward record highs on Friday, Dec. 4, despite discouraging data detailing how much damage the deepening pandemic is doing to the job market. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Wall Street closed out a solid week for stocks Friday with more record highs as traders took a discouraging jobs report as a sign that Congress will finally move to deliver more aid for the pandemic-stricken economy.

The S&P 500 rose 0.9%, notching its third all-time high this week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, Nasdaq composite and Russell 2000 index of smaller companies also closed at record highs.

The gains were broad, with about 81% of the companies in the S&P 500 moving higher. Gains in technology, health care and energy stocks helped lift the market, outweighing losses in utilities and companies that rely on consumer spending. Treasury yields rose, a sign of growing confidence in the economic outlook.

Hopes remain deeply rooted on Wall Street that one or more coronavirus vaccines are coming to rescue the global economy next year. But efforts to contain a surge in new virus cases has stoked worries about more economic pain for companies and consumers.

That’s why Friday’s much weaker-than-expected jobs report perversely helped lift stocks. Investors are betting the report may be bad enough to help kick Congress out of its paralysis and deliver more support for the economy.

“In a twist of irony, the bad jobs number is positive for markets today,” said Keith Buchanan, portfolio manager at Globalt Investments. “The market is telling us today that if the labor market continues to show slowing momentum, it’s much more likely the powers that be in D.C. agree to something that’s material.”

The S&P 500 rose 32.40 points to 3,699.12. The benchmark index climbed 1.7% for the week, it’s second consecutive weekly gain. The Dow picked up 248.74 points, or 0.8%, to 30,218.26. The Nasdaq picked up 87.05 points, or 0.7%, to 12,464.23.

Stocks of smaller companies, which have recently helped lead the market after lagging earlier this year, outgained the broader market Friday. The Russell 2000 climbed 43.75 points, or 2.4%, to 1,892.45, more than double the gain for the big stocks in the S&P 500.

Stocks seemed headed for a downbeat day early Friday as traders weighed the disappointing jobs report. Treasury yields sank, and U.S. stock futures wobbled after the data showed employers added just 245,000 jobs last month, half of what economists were expecting. The report marked a sharp step down from October’s gain of 610,000 and was the fifth straight month of slowing growth.

Economists called the numbers disappointing and evidence that the worsening pandemic will likely destroy more jobs and income for the economy in the coming months, which are shaping up to be a bleak winter.

But markets quickly firmed amid hopes that the dour data could spur some action from Congress, which has dithered for months after much of its last round of financial support for the economy expired during the summer.

“Overall, today’s report is beckoning lawmakers to act on additional fiscal stimulus measures in order to bridge the output gap in the economy until a vaccine is deployed, and the longer they hold out the wider the gap may become,” said Charlie Ripley, senior investment strategist for Allianz Investment Management.

Democrats and Republicans have been making on-and-off progress on talks for another round of support for the economy, including aid for laid-off workers and industries hit hard by the pandemic. Momentum has seemed to swing back to “on” this week after Democrats signaled willingness to accept a smaller package than they were earlier demanding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the phone about a possible deal on Thursday, and lawmakers from both parties have been voicing support for a bipartisan deal. The glimmers of progress follow months of cajoling and pleading by economists and investors, who say such aid is essential. Many obstacles remain, though.

The hope in markets is that financial support from Washington could help carry the economy through a dark winter. Surging coronavirus counts, hospitalizations and deaths are pushing governments around the world to bring back varying degrees of restrictions on businesses. They’re also scaring consumers away from stores, restaurants and other normal economic activity.

Hopefully, the economy will be able to stand more on its own next year after one or more COVID-19 vaccines help start a slow return to more normal conditions. Such hopes helped stocks muscle 10.8% higher in November, though the momentum has slowed a bit recently as the pandemic accelerates at a troubling rate.

Energy companies were some of Friday’s best performers, as oil prices climb further out of the hole they plunged into during the spring following a collapse in demand. Diamondback Energy jumped 12.7%, and Occidental Petroleum gained 13.4% for the two biggest gains in the S&P 500. Both stocks remain down by about 50% for the year, though.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury shook off an initial stumble following the release of the jobs report to rise to 0.97%, up from 0.91% late Thursday.

European markets rose. Asian markets mostly rose, except in Japan, where the Nikkei slipped.

___

AP Business Writer Joe McDonald contributed.

California wildfires emitted a huge amount of carbon dioxide this year. How much of a problem is that?

J.D. Morris Dec. 4, 2020 Updated: Dec. 4, 2020 5:45 p.m.

California’s historic 2020 wildfires released a staggering amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but that may not be as big of a problem as it sounds, according to state officials and climate experts.

As of mid-October, fires in the state had produced more carbon dioxide than every economic sector except transportation. Wildfires emitted 111.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to preliminary figures provided by the California Air Resources Board, compared with 169.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for transportation in 2018, the most recent year for which greenhouse gas figures are available by sector.

Yet experts say that wildfire emissions should not be compared in an apples-to-apples fashion with emissions caused by cars, power plants and other sectors that burn fossil fuels for energy.

That’s not because the emissions from fires do not trap heat in the atmosphere — they do. Rather, it’s because fire is a natural part of the landscape in California, meaning that some amount of greenhouse gases should be expected every year because of wildfires. Also, the carbon released by a forest when it burns got there because trees took it from the atmosphere — as they’ll do again when vegetation regrows.

“The forests are alive. They’re growing and dying and regrowing,” said Michael Wara, director of the climate and energy policy program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. “That’s really different than carbon that was buried 50 million years ago under the earth that we are unearthing and burning. I think it’s not helpful to compare the two. It’s a misdirection.”

Forests typically take decades to fully regrow after being scorched severely in a wildfire, yet their ability to recapture carbon through photosynthesis is considered part of the Earth’s natural carbon cycle.

The air board has been tracking wildfire emissions and is working to deepen the public’s understanding of how the carbon dioxide released by blazes in recent years compares with what California experienced historically. A public webinar on the subject occurred Tuesday.

The air board’s past figures show that 2020 was far more intense a time for wildfire carbon emissions than any other year in which records were kept, which is as far back as 2000. This year’s fire-related emissions were significantly more than double the respective totals in 2018 and 2008, which saw two of the most severe fire seasons before this year. The 2020 estimate is also greater than the carbon estimates for fires in 2016 through 2019 combined.

That’s not surprising, because this fire season has seen far more acres burned than any other year on record, with more than 4 million acres burned across the state.

Higher carbon emissions generally coincide with years where more land burned.

5

Mines Road and other gravel roads snake through the burn zone of the SCU Lightning Complex fire south of Livermore in November. The fire was one of the largest in California history.Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle

While carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas tracked by the air board in its wildfire emissions tally, fires can also release other planet- warming pollutants such as methane, experts say.

Air board officials are trying to get a better understanding of how much fire California historically saw before the modern era, including through cultural burning practices by Native American tribes. Further work is needed to arrive at a more conclusive answer, said Dave Edwards, assistant division chief of the air board’s air quality planning and science division.

“The ultimate goal would be to put some context around today’s fire,” Edwards said in a recent interview.

Air board officials said at the webinar that they hope to have reports on fire emissions and historical fire activity in California finalized by mid-2021.

Tony Wexler, director of the Air Quality Research Center at UC Davis, said carbon emissions from wildfires are “pretty close to a zero concern for me.”

“The carbon in the trees and brush and grasses that’s burning all came from the atmosphere,” Wexler said. “It’s not a net emission of carbon dioxide — it’s basically putting it back where it came from. I don’t consider this to be a serious problem for climate.”

Wexler is more concerned about the health impacts of pollution caused by wildfire smoke — which was particularly bad in California this year, when the air was unhealthy for weeks.

The problem of wildfire emissions, both the planet-warming kind and the particulate matter pollutants that can cause coughing and long-term lung damage, is made worse by climate change, which is drying out trees and shrubs more and fostering other conditions that make fires more likely to grow into vast, raging infernos.

California could get a better handle on its wildfire problem by stepping up its prescribed fire program, as the state has now committed to doing. Wexler said he also supports using more forest land to harvest biofuels, which turns organic materials into energy. Thinning forests can make future fires less severe.

Wara, the Stanford climate expert, said he has been trying to secure funding — so far unsuccessfully — to research how the state’s big fire-prevention plans might affect smoke levels going forward. Using models typically applied to parse out the impact of new regulations on air pollution, Wara wants to project how California’s plans to dramatically expand its prescribed fire program could affect the amount of smoke seen in the state every year.

Though he said he doesn’t think fire emissions should be compared to those from fossil fuels, Wara said it’s still useful to contemplate how land management practices can influence how long forests retain the carbon they store before releasing it back into the atmosphere.

“That’s not a scary thing to consider, but it’s just really different than coal and gas or oil,” he said.

With stay-at-home order, Newsom dissuades travel, recommends getting outdoors

Gregory Thomas Dec. 4, 2020 Updated: Dec. 4, 2020 6:05 p.m.

A group of women hikes on a trail at El Corte de Madera Open Space and Preserve outside Woodside, December 2, 2020.Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle

In an announcement of pending new regional stay-at-home restrictions on Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom implored Californians to forgo travel for the foreseeable future.

The new approach to stem the third major surge of the coronavirus carved the state’s 58 counties into five regional groups. If hospital ICU capacity in a group hits 85%, counties in that group will be subject to stricter lockdown measures for at least three weeks. The measures include barring residents from nonessential travel outside their counties and closing outdoor venues like playgrounds, zoos and amusement parks.

Although California hasn’t applied the new rules yet, the state’s COVID information website dissuades people from nonessential travel: “Stay in your county if you can. Don’t drive more than 2-3 hours.” It adds that people should “avoid traveling long distances for vacations or pleasure as much as possible.”

The state’s tourism bureau, Visit California, issued an interpretation of Newsom’s announcement, saying the state has “banned nonessential travel in most of the state beginning Dec. 4.”

The trajectory of COVID cases indicates that the Bay Area could be placed under new stay-at-home restrictions in two to three weeks.

“It’ll be hard to encourage people to travel to San Francisco when museums and other venues are closing and the state is discouraging anything but essential travel,” said Joe D’Alessandro, president and CEO of the San Francisco Travel Association.

D’Alessandro’s group, like tourism bureaus in the state, has already shifted its messaging from international markets to entice Californians. That won’t be appropriate, either, if swaths of counties backslide into the new restrictive tier, he said.

Even if leisure travel were to again be verboten for state residents, Newsom made one point clear: going outdoors and exercising is important for our psychological well-being and overall health. The new order provides for “access to (and travel for) critical service and allows outdoor activities to preserve Californians’ physical and mental health.” That means that even if your county falls under the regional stay-at-home, you’re still allowed to go outdoors locally.

“None of us are naive — I certainly am not — of the mental stress that all of us are under. … But we want to encourage activity, again, that’s focused not indoors, not in congregate facilities, not where there’s tremendous amount of mixing — but outdoors,” Newsom said in his video announcement. “We encourage you to take your dog for a walk, we want you to exercise and go on a run with a partner within your household. Go sledding.”

Research shows that getting outdoors — even just for a long walk, brief sun exposure, or within view of a natural setting — can have positive effects on stress levels, mood and health outlook.

Newsom listed recommendations for outdoor activities: hiking, bike riding, fishing, yoga, meditation, dog walking, fitness classes, skiing, snowboarding, sledding, and going to parks and beaches.

He emphasized, however, that people should stay near home and with members of their household to reduce risk. That would make location-dependent activities off limits for Bay Area residents — like skiing, even as Tahoe ski areas are opening with new COVID protocols.

Still, the Bay Area has more than 350 parks, beaches and recreation areas — and most remain open. For a detailed map of where to go, check out The Chronicle’s outdoor tracker. “This is really important — to take care of your physical health and mental health and get the kind of exercise that’s required to get us through this temporary moment,” Newsom said.

Vaccines are on the way, he said: “There is light at the end of the tunnel.”

Is it time for Sen. Dianne Feinstein to contemplate retirement?

By Steve Kettmann Dec. 6, 2020 Updated: Dec. 6, 2020 4:07 a.m.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, arrives for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing in October.

Photo: Patrick Semansky / Associated Press

They made fun of Robert Byrd, the West Virginia senator so sunken into the depredations of old age that he seemed to be falling asleep even when he wasn’t. Then came President George W. Bush’s rush to war in Iraq, and Byrd led the opposition, at age 85, 44 years into his record-setting 51-year tenure in the Senate.

Byrd’s “Sleepwalking through history” speech in February 2003 very nearly turned the tide against the war, as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy later explained to me. Byrd understood, as he discussed with me often the last two years of his life, that the onus was on him to show that at his advanced age he was still a vital and effective member of the Senate. He needed to be sure his contributions were so indisputably important that they offset the obvious imperative to step aside and make way for a fresh generation of younger leaders to come into their own.

I hope my senator, Dianne Feinstein, will be as blunt and searching in talking about her future with her inner circle in the weeks ahead. Her decision to step down from being the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming session after she was reportedly pressured by New York Senator Chuck Schumer raises more questions than it answers.

She’s already 87 and I’d be stunned if she has in mind serving out her full term, which would put her in office through January 2025. Political transitions are often not so different from the life transition we call death, a truth I’ve pondered on recent socially distanced visits to see my aged parents in San Jose. My dad is 94 and my mother’s 90th birthday is coming up in February.

As it happens, mom has known Feinstein since the 1960s, when my mother was on the state Democratic Central Committee, appointed by family friend Al Alquist, and attended organizing meetings at Feinstein’s house in San Francisco.

I asked my mother if she had an opinion on what Feinstein should do. She gave me a look. My mother always has opinions.

“She should step down,” she told me firmly. “She’s too old. She’s only two years younger than me.”

OK, it’s not quite LBJ losing Walter Cronkite during the Vietnam War, but if Feinstein has lost longtime supporters like my mother, a very sharp cookie on all things political, and she also has to face the reality of enflamed activist-progressive opposition, clearly the question is when, not if, she ends her term early.

So I ask: Why not step down sooner rather than later? At a time and on a pace of her own choosing?

Feinstein’s decision may hinge on the extent to which she accepts the reality that the inauguration of Joe Biden next month will not end the urgent sense of a national emergency, but in some ways will usher us into an even greater political crisis.

We’re still reeling as a country — and will be for months or years to come. We’re simultaneously in denial about how deep the problems go, and how urgent the need to upend and rebuild, and weary of the endless chatter of doom and gloom. As comedian J-L Cauvin puts it in a forthcoming collection of essays I edited as publisher of Wellstone Books, “Now What?” “The orange tumor has been removed from the system.” That’s the good news. But: “You’re not out of the woods yet. You’ve got to go to political chemo now.”

Many of us have been twisted up inside with dread, including both the vocal progressive critics of Feinstein and, I’m sure, Feinstein herself. I get that our senior senator would love to focus on using her considerable intellect to help guide the Senate forward. I’m sure she has her own questions about how much the value of her experience and judgment offsets any decline in effectiveness — and relevance. Roger Angell, the now 100-year-old eminence grise of American letters, used to talk to me in the summer of 2002 when we were working together on a book project about the hardest part of aging being that you didn’t know what was a bad day and what was decline.

Let’s say Feinstein had a bad day when she hugged Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and burbled approvingly about the farcical process of speed-confirming the religious extremist Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Fine. Bad days are allowed. A better question is: What can Feinstein do over the next year to breathe life into moldering institutions, laid low by people of bad faith, and to inject urgency and fresh conviction into the daunting project of rebuilding this country?

I have incredible respect for all Feinstein has accomplished over the years. When she was starting out in the ’60s, when my mother knew her, the San Francisco Examiner did a piece about her, noting that she was the youngest person serving on the California Women’s Board of Terms and Paroles, and adding: “It is also a safe guess that she may be the nation’s prettiest parole board member.” The Examiner piece on Feinstein’s “Day of Victory” in November 1969, when she was first elected to the Board of Supervisors, noted: “At 6:45 a.m. she skipped lightly down the red carpeted stairs of the house and offered her guests coffee. Her dress was light blue, with a short-sleeved top and blue-brown plaid A-line skirt.”

Feinstein has had enough of others defining her. Trailblazers of her stature have earned the right to chart their own course. I join my mother in thinking that Feinstein has arrived at the Obi-Wan Kenobi stage of life, where she can best serve the cause she’s fought for so hard for so long by, in a sense, vanishing into the wind.

“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine,” said Obi-Wan.

Feinstein, as bridge to the next generation of leaders who can reinvent the Senate and juice up political communication, can be far more powerful than she could possibly imagine.

COVID-19 relief: What's on the table as Congress seeks deal

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Dec. 4, 2020 Updated: Dec. 4, 2020 4:08 p.m.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of Calif., speaks during her weekly briefing, Friday, Dec. 4, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington.Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — After numerous fits and starts and months of inaction, optimism is finally building in Washington for a COVID-19 aid bill that would offer relief for businesses, the unemployed, schools, and health care providers, among others struggling as caseloads are spiking.

Under pressure from moderates in both parties, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have initiated late-game negotiations in hopes of combining a relief package of, in all likelihood, less than $1 trillion with a separate $1.4 trillion governmentwide omnibus spending bill. The duo were the architects of the $1.8 trillion CARES Act, the landmark relief bill passed in March. Success is not certain and considerable differences remain over items such as aid to states and local governments, liability protections for businesses and universities reopening during the pandemic, and whether to issue a second round of $1,200 direct payments to most Americans.

But renewing soon-to-expire jobless benefits, providing a second round of “paycheck protection” subsidies, and funding to distribute vaccines are sure bets to be included in any deal.

8

Here are the top issues for the end-stage COVID-19 relief talks.

___

JOBLESS BENEFITS

The CARES Act created a $600 per-week bonus COVID-19 unemployment benefit that sustained household incomes and consumer demand during the springtime shutdowns. It expired at the end of July and Republicans are against its renewal. The CARES Act also allowed for additional weeks of emergency pandemic unemployment payments at regular benefit levels — which are themselves about to expire, on Dec. 31. Any deal is sure to extend the emergency benefits, and a bipartisan compromise framework that’s helping guide the talks calls for restoring half of the bonus benefit, or $300 per week more.

___

BUSINESS SUBSIDIES

Another sure thing is a reauthorization of the Paycheck Protection Program, also established by the CARES Act, to give a second round of subsidies to businesses struggling through the pandemic and make other changes to the program, which enjoys bipartisan support but is particularly revered by Republicans. Leftover PPP funds from two springtime infusions into the program would cover almost half of the $300 billion or so cost.

___

DIRECT PAYMENTS

President Trump has long supported another $1,200 round of direct payments to most Americans, subject to income limits that make upper-bracket taxpayers ineligible. House Democrats support the idea, but it is unpopular with many Senate Republicans and was left out of a scaled-back Senate GOP plan. A bipartisan bill by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and others, leaves out the direct payments as well, and their up to $300 billion cost could render them too expensive for inclusion in the year-end package, though lawmakers ranging from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., are pushing to retain them.

___

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS This is one of the trickiest issues in the talks — another round of aid to states and local governments to follow a $150 billion installment this spring. It’s a top priority of Pelosi and other Democrats but is opposed by many Republicans, who warn it would bail out states run by Democrats like California and New York. Trump doesn’t like the idea as well, but Pelosi’s demands for the money have been slashed from earlier amounts approaching $1 trillion. Revenue losses due to COVID-19 haven’t been as large as feared. But smaller localities left out of the first tranche of payments are eager for funding. A plan endorsed by moderates would provide $160 billion.

___

LIABILITY SHIELD

Businesses reopening during the pandemic have for months been seeking a shield against lawsuits claiming negligence for COVID-19 outbreaks. McConnell is the most potent backer of the idea and he’s drafted sweeping protections against lawsuits for businesses, universities, and other organizations. The powerful trial lawyers lobby — which still holds great influence with Democrats — is opposed, and McConnell’s fears of a wave of COVID-related lawsuits haven’t materialized. Veteran Senate Judiciary Committee members Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, have been deputized to negotiate the issue, a sign the talks are at a serious stage.

___

ODDS AND ENDS

Numerous smaller items are ripe for inclusion, including $10 billion for the Postal Service, a $20 billion- plus deal adding food aid sought by Democrats and farm subsidies favored by Republicans, more than $100 billion in funding for schools seeking to reopen, along with funding for child care, Amtrak, transit systems, and health care providers.

___'

This version of the story corrects that Ocasio-Cortez is from New York.

Biden picks Xavier Becerra, California attorney general, to head health and human services

Alexei Koseff Dec. 7, 2020 Updated: Dec. 7, 2020 8:45 a.m.4

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra departs after leaving the Supreme Court after oral arguments were heard in the case of President Trump's decision to end the Obama-era, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2019, at the Supreme Court in Washington. Becerra was nominated by President-elect Joe Biden Photo: Alex Brandon / Associated Press

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has sued the Trump administration more than 100 times including in defense of the Affordable Care Act, will be President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for secretary of health and human services. Biden settled on the unexpected pick to lead his response to the coronavirus pandemic in recent days, following pressure from advocacy groups that his incoming Cabinet lacked sufficient Latino representation. Becerra had been widely reported to be under consideration for U.S. attorney general, a position for which Biden has yet to name a nominee.

“As Secretary of Health and Human Services, I will build on our progress and ensure every American has access to quality, affordable health care—through this pandemic and beyond,” Becerra said Monday on Twitter.

Gov. Gavin Newsom may now have an opportunity to make his own mark on one of the most influential offices in the state, by appointing a new attorney general to fill out the remaining two years of Becerra’s term if the Senate confirms him. Newsom quickly congratulated Becerra on Twitter.

“You’ve spent your entire career fighting for equality and justice,” Newsom said. “You’ve spent the last four defending the #ACA. Now, you’ll help lead our nation toward quality, affordable health care for ALL — and continue to make CA proud!”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services oversees the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the poor and elderly and the Food and Drug Administration.

Although a state attorney general is an unconventional choice for the job, it could be an astute one if a divided Congress blocks Biden from advancing his health care agenda through legislation, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“The focus is going to be on his administrative actions,” Levitt said. “Becerra’s legal background could help in thinking creatively about how to use executive action to advance the health care agenda without Congress.”

Becerra, 62, is a veteran of Washington, D.C., having served 12 terms in the House representing a Los Angeles district before then-Gov. Jerry Brown named him to replace Kamala Harris as attorney general when she was elected to the Senate in 2016. Becerra won election to the office in 2018.

He was raised in Sacramento by a Mexican immigrant mother and a U.S.-born father who grew up in Mexico. Becerra went on to receive his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University. After working as an attorney, he was elected to the state Assembly in 1990 and then the House two years later. In Congress, he served on the Ways and Means Committee, where his portfolio included health spending.

Becerra is the first Latino ever to serve as California attorney general. The state office only amplified his national profile, as he led California in legal challenge after legal challenge against President Trump on everything from tailpipe emissions standards and abortion funding to immigration detention and changes at the U.S. Postal Service.

But Becerra has also been a champion for expanding health care access, protecting patients and lowering costs during his time as attorney general, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group. Becerra secured a $575 million settlement with Sutter Health last year in a lawsuit over whether Northern California’s largest health care system had abused its market power to raise prices, a major development in the battle over hospital consolidation. He brought successful enforcement actions against pharmaceutical companies for entering into pay-for-delay agreements to prevent cheaper generic models of prescription drugs from entering the market.

And Becerra’s office recently represented California before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue against dismantling the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 federal law that expanded health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. The Trump administration declined to defend the program from challenges by Republican state attorneys general, who argued that it should be overturned after Trump and Republicans in Congress undid a key component of the law that required people to purchase insurance or pay a penalty. The court is expected to rule on the case in 2021.

“I’ve been impressed that he’s been fearless in going after some of the big interests in health care,” Wright said. “Becerra will have a lot of work to do to undo the damage by the Trump administration, but his track record shows he would have a proactive agenda past the pandemic.”

His defense of the Affordable Care Act and other liberal positions has made Becerra prominent in Democratic circles — even winning him a slot delivering the Spanish-language response to Trump’s State of the Union address in 2019. But it could make it challenge for him to win confirmation should Republicans retain control of the Senate.

Biden is expected to make Becerra’s nomination official this week, along with other health-related picks. Politico reported Sunday night that Biden would name Rochelle Walensky, chief of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, to replace Robert Redfield as head of the CDC.

Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment Sunday about the prospect of naming a new attorney general. The governor already will have to name a replacement in the U.S. Senate for Harris when she resigns her seat to become vice president.

With Trump leaving office, the focus of the next California attorney general will probably shift from battles with the federal government to enforcing new state laws such as consumer data privacy rights and AB5, which redefined which workers are considered employees.

Samantha Corbin, a Sacramento political consultant who hosts a podcast about state attorneys general called “The Age of AGs,” said Newsom may be able to balance competing political pressures he is facing surrounding the Senate seat if he must also pick a new attorney general. Latino groups have demanded that the governor choose someone from that community to replace Harris, as no Latino has ever represented California in the Senate. Other groups, however, have called on the governor to select a Black woman, since Harris is the only Black woman in the Senate.

“He’s playing a kind of musical chairs right now,” Corbin said of Newsom. “The reality is, I think, if he does not pick a Black woman for one of these seats, he’s going to be in a politically precarious position with the African American community in the state.”

One possibility for attorney general, she said, would be Judge Teri Jackson, a Black woman whom Newsom appointed last year to the state appellate court. The governor, who is known for liking to break new ground, could also look to another to name another historic first, Corbin said, such as Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of Torrance (Los Angeles County), who would be California’s first Asian American attorney general.

Other names Corbin said she has heard floated include Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a former leader of the state Senate and close ally of Newsom’s on homelessness issues, and Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff of Burbank and Katie Porter of Irvine.

POLITICS California Democrats look to put squabbles behind them as Legislature returns

Dustin Gardiner Dec. 6, 2020 Updated: Dec. 6, 2020 5:40 p.m.

Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood (Los Angeles County) in February: They’ve had their disagreements.

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

SACRAMENTO — Democrats’ grip on power in the California Legislature is as strong as ever. The party held its supermajorities in both chambers in the election, and even padded its margin in the Senate. But holding more seats doesn’t necessarily equate to legislative success, as Democrats showed this summer, when many of the biggest policy proposals died as they squabbled on their final night of the session.

Legislators return to work Monday to gavel in their two-year session and swear in new members, meeting under the cloud of a worsening coronavirus pandemic. The chambers will meet blocks apart, with the Assembly taking the unprecedented step of convening in an NBA arena in downtown Sacramento due to health concerns. The Senate will gather in its Capitol chambers.

No guests or family members will be allowed, making the usually celebratory affair more subdued. Lawmakers will be seated at least 6 feet apart, and senators will be separated by plexiglass screens.

The distance between chambers and legislators is emblematic of the divide that opened last session as they fought over how many bills to consider and whether to allow remote voting.

Outgoing state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, said he has “never seen it this bad or this estranged” between the Senate and Assembly in his 12 years in Sacramento.

“If that does not change, it will creature stress in the Legislature, needless stress, that would be on top of the challenges that COVID is creating to good lawmaking in California,” Hill said.

The tension could make it difficult for Democrats to pass legislation dealing with budget shortfalls, pandemic relief, housing shortages and wildfire prevention.

A rivalry between the Senate and the Assembly is far from rare. Lawmakers often clash over which bills pass out of the opposite chamber, and measures are regularly held as leverage in these standoffs.

But Robin Swanson, a Democratic strategist in Sacramento, said there’s “just a brighter light on it right now.”

“People are going to have to check their egos and really lead by example,” she said. “I mean, the jobless claims are going up again, the pandemic is getting worse, the ICU units are getting filled — this is the time for leadership, and I expect we’ll see some shining stars in that.”

The 2020 session ended in a public breakdown, exacerbated by disagreements between Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood (Los Angeles County) and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego over how to adjust lawmaking to the pandemic.

On the final night in session, major bills died without final votes, including Atkins’ priority housing bill. Tension between Rendon and Atkins flared in the open afterward.

Rendon said Friday that he and Atkins have spoken at length about how to approach the upcoming session. He said the tension wasn’t necessarily unusual, though the pandemic added to the intensity.

“Yeah, it was a rough end to the year for sure. Overall, it was a rough year,” Rendon said. “We’ve chatted a lot. We’re looking forward to the year ahead.” After the end of the last session, Atkins criticized Assembly leadership over what she called the “absolute needless delay of housing production bills.” On Friday, she said there are naturally ups and down in the relationship, but she is “optimistic that we will be able to proceed, and succeed, in a unified way” to pass a budget and critical bills.

The breakdown was fueled by the logistics of the pandemic. Early on, Atkins and Rendon disagreed about whether to allow remote voting as lawmakers took an extended recess. Then, the Senate directed lawmakers to sharply pare back the number of bills they would push during the compressed session, while the Assembly reduced its workload by far less.

The situation devolved in the final hours of the session, when the Assembly sat on bills as the Senate faced an internal meltdown when nearly every GOP senator had to vote remotely due to coronavirus exposure.

Rendon said he and Atkins have talked recently about the number of bills each chamber sends across the Capitol to make “sure that it’s a manageable workload.”

Any lingering tensions could complicate the push among legislators to assert more oversight over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to the pandemic, as well as their ability to steer a debate over how the state should use an estimated $26 billion windfall to offset the pandemic’s financial pain.

Democratic budget committee members bristled last year when the Newsom administration was reluctant to share details of its emergency spending.

“They felt left out, and in fact they were left out,” said Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican consultant. “Decisions were made, money was spent.”

Some legislators complained last week that the governor hadn’t consulted them about a flurry of new pandemic steps, including a stay-at-home order for regions where fewer than 15% of intensive care unit beds are available.

Assembly GOP leader Marie Waldron of Escondido (San Diego County) tweeted that the Legislature “is cut out of the decision loop” on Newsom’s orders.

Newsom has defended his sweeping actions as necessary, and legal, to meet the pandemic’s threat. The governor has called his executive orders “foundational in terms of governing a state in a time of crisis.”

Democratic legislative leaders have largely backed Newsom’s executive actions and passed laws last session to codify some, including one sending mail ballots to every active registered voter for the fall elections.

Still, Rendon said many Democrats agree with Republicans that the Legislature must assert its oversight authority more. He said lawmakers’ extended absences last session were largely to blame for Newsom acting alone. “The more we’re in session, the more we’re in Sacramento, the more we’re able to assert ourselves,” Rendon said. “We missed nine weeks of work in Sacramento last year. We weren’t there for him to consult, we weren’t there in order for us to operate in the way we normally do.”

Hill, the outgoing senator, said that while he agrees with the need for the governor to act promptly in an emergency, the split between the Senate and Assembly could make it difficult to keep the executive branch in check.

“It certainly gives the governor greater power,” Hill said. “We want to speak as a united branch of government because that’s where the strength lies.”

Newsom may get to pick California’s next attorney general. Here are the names being mentioned

Joe Garofoli Dec. 7, 2020 Updated: Dec. 7, 2020 7:50 p.m.

Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, left, and Adam Schiff of Burbank walk through the tunnels of the of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 21, 2019. Both are among the rumored possible picks to replace California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who will be nominated to be President-elect Joe Biden’s health and human services Photo: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades / Special to The Chronicle

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra transformed his job into one with a national platform — which is why some top state Democrats working in Washington are interested in the position now that President-elect Joe Biden has picked Becerra to be secretary of health and human services.

Among the most-recognized names are two Democrats who carved national reputations as leaders of the anti-President Trump resistance: House Intelligence chair Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank and East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell, who serves on both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees. Both are on the long list of possible appointees Gov. Gavin Newsom can choose from to fill the job if Becerra is confirmed by the Senate and leaves Sacramento with two years left in his term.

Biden’s selection gives Newsom the possibility of making sweeping changes in California’s power structure. He was already poised to name a replacement for Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she resigns her Senate seat. Speculation has centered on California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, which would open his job for a pick named by the governor.

Now, Newsom may get to name California’s top law enforcement official as well.

All of Newsom’s choices are fraught. There are demographic considerations: Harris is the only Black woman in the Senate, but Latino groups note that 40% of California’s population is Latino. And whoever Newsom names will have to be a credible candidate in 2022 to win a full six-year term.

Many of those same factors will be present as Newsom makes his pick for attorney general, all the more so because the job has been a launching pad in recent years to higher office. Becerra replaced Harris when she was elected to the Senate. Harris’ predecessor was Jerry Brown, who went on to his second two-term stint as governor.

Here are some of the names that have emerged:

Schiff: He’s one of California’s best-known Democrats in Congress, having led the impeachment of Trump in the House and argued the case for conviction in the Senate. He’s also a former federal prosecutor.

“The governor has a lot of tough choices ahead of him, and Adam certainly would be open to talking to him about how he can best serve,” said a source close to Schiff, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk freely about the Burbank Democrat’s thinking.

There’s one issue with Schiff that is shared by other House members who might want Becerra’s job: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs them, too. She will have a sharply narrowed majority in the next Congress, and leaving any Democrat’s seat vacant even for a few months will make passing legislation under Biden that much harder.

Swalwell: The former Alameda County prosecutor became a regular presence on cable news and social media as he skewered Trump from two House committees that investigated the president and many of those close to him. The Dublin Democrat ran briefly for president last year, so he’s clearly got his eye on bigger things. Several sources said he is reaching out to state political leaders to explore the attorney general’s position.

Rep. Ted Lieu: The Democrat from Torrance (Los Angeles County) has also spent the past four years as a Trump irritant, taking on the president in social media and elsewhere. Born in Taiwan, Lieu immigrated to the U.S. when he was 3. California has never had an Asian American attorney general.

Rep. Katie Porter: The former UC Irvine law professor has been on the rise in Washington for her interrogations of Trump officials and corporate leaders during committee meetings. Just re-elected to her second term, she may see a more promising road in front of her in Washington than in Sacramento. One big drawback for Porter: There’s no guarantee Democrats could hold her Orange County House seat. Two other Democrats in Orange County who joined Porter in flipping GOP-held seats in 2018 were defeated last month by Republicans.

Judge Teri Jackson: A year ago, Newsom named Jackson to the state’s First District Court of Appeal, making her the first Black woman on the court. She was previously the first Black woman to be a San Francisco Superior Court judge.

Assembly member Rob Bonta: Born in the Philippines, the Alameda Democrat will be termed out in 2024. He has said he is considering a challenge to Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley in two years.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg: The former top Democrat in the state Senate, Steinberg has long had a relationship with Newsom and currently co-chairs the governor’s Council of Regional Homeless Advisors.

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton: The first woman and first African American to serve as district attorney in Contra Costa has emphasized the need to address racial and economic disparities in the criminal justice system.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera: Herrera is well-known to Newsom; he has been city attorney since 2001, overlapping Newsom’s six-year stint as mayor. He also has a national profile, thanks to his shepherding of same-sex marriage legalization cases to the Supreme Court.

Equality California leader Rick Zbur: The executive director of the largest LGBTQ civil rights organization in California has been a longtime environmental law attorney.

Former state Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones: He represented Sacramento in the Assembly and served two terms as insurance commissioner before losing a bid for attorney general in 2018.

Former state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson: The former Santa Barbara County prosecutor has served as chair of the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

Antonia Hernández: She’s president and CEO of the California Community Foundation philanthropic organization and was previously general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting Latinos.

For Biden’s Economic Team, an Early Focus on Climate

In announcing key economic advisers in the White House and the cabinet, the president-elect has emphasized action to boost clean energy and reduce emissions

By Jim Tankersley and Lisa Friedman • Dec. 11, 2020

WASHINGTON — The video rollouts of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s pick for Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen, and National Economic Council director, Brian Deese, began biographically. But they quickly shifted to focus on an issue that could distinguish Mr. Biden’s core economic team from its predecessors: climate change.

Ms. Yellen promised an agenda to promote “investments that will create jobs and address the tremendous challenge of climate change.” Mr. Biden introduced Mr. Deese by calling him the first N.E.C. director who is a “true expert on climate policy.”

Both were clear signs that, even as Mr. Biden confronts the immediate task of accelerating the pandemic recovery, he has placed the longer-running climate challenge at the center of his administration’s economic priorities.

That climate focus is expected to influence the incoming administration’s initial plans to support the economic recovery. Ms. Yellen, Mr. Deese and Neera Tanden, the nominee to head the White House Office of Management and Budget, are preparing to weave efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate clean energy production into the economic stimulus legislation that his team is crafting. It is also expected to play a heavy role in a broader infrastructure initiative that could be one of Mr. Biden’s best hopes for a major bipartisan bill in his first year in office.

Climate is also expected to influence his economic approach more broadly, with his team preparing to use the government’s vast regulatory powers to advance a climate agenda through financial regulations that could further accelerate the deployment of wind and solar energy, electric cars and other initiatives to reduce emissions — an approach that Mr. Biden’s team insists will create jobs.

Those close to Mr. Biden, who has pledged to take a “whole of government” approach to climate change, said he is purposefully putting what scientists believe is the world’s largest looming crisis at the heart of the agencies most responsible for promoting the country’s economic security.

“Historically we have looked at climate change as an environmental issue,” said Christy Goldfuss, a former head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality under President Barack Obama, where she worked with Mr. Deese on a so-called green team that helped negotiate the multinational Paris agreement on climate. What Mr. Biden has done, she said, “is center climate policy in his economic team.”

Ms. Goldfuss and other climate and economic policy experts said they expect Mr. Biden’s economic team, led by Ms. Yellen, to continue sounding the alarm about the growing costs of not reducing emissions.

According to a 2018 government assessment, natural disasters and other extreme weather events driven by a warming planet could cost the United States 10.5 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100. This year alone, according to the National Oceanic and 1Janet Yellen, Mr. Biden’s pick for Treasury secretary, has long argued for emissions reduction as Atmospheric Administration, an economic imperative.Credit...Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York Tmes there were 16 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters across the country between January and September. That figure did not account for the wildfires that raged across the West, which caused an estimated $10 billion in damage.

“Climate change is going to touch every part of our economy, and climate change policy is going to require us to change the way we power and fuel every part of our economy,” said Joseph E. Aldy, a Harvard University economist who served as special assistant to Mr. Obama on energy and environment.

Several of Mr. Biden’s early economic picks are longstanding voices for emissions reduction as an economic imperative. In 1998, Ms. Yellen, then the head of President Bill Clinton’s Council on Economic Advisers, asked Congress to “consider the costs of inaction,” warning of “catastrophic risks” to the United States amounting to billions of dollars annually because of impending extreme weather events.

“To what extent are we willing to take such chances with our planet?” she asked lawmakers during one of the more than half-dozen trips she made to Capitol Hill that year testifying in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, the first global agreement to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, which the Senate ultimately rejected.

She was less vocal about climate risks in her highest-profile economic policy position, as chair of the Federal Reserve; after her departure from the job in 2018, she called for climate action, including a tax on carbon earlier this year.

Mr. Aldy and others say they expect a Yellen Treasury to focus on a wide range of regulations touching climate issues, including the insurance industry’s consideration of climate change and how rising global temperatures could affect the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Perhaps most importantly, they expect Treasury and other financial regulatory agencies to lean on investors and the business community to manage climate risks. Justin Guay, the director of global climate strategy for the Sunrise Project, an environmental group based in Australia that focuses on pushing financial institutions to address climate change, said that would be a key step in helping companies pursue decarbonization targets, and financiers to shift investments away from fossil fuels. But he also called it a minor one.

“That will look night and day compared to the Trump years,” Mr. Guay said. Still, he noted, most major companies are doing that kind of work, so “it’s a low bar for action.”

He and other progressive climate activists said they hope to see Mr. Biden’s economic team use the levers of the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation, which created a batch of new regulations and other efforts meant to reduce risk in the financial system, to address climate change. They are pushing the new administration to follow the logic of recognizing the financial risk posed by climate change and enact regulations to prevent banks, asset managers and other financial institutions from financing coal, oil and gas projects.

Some other specific financial regulations that experts said could come early, and which Mr. Biden campaigned on, include requiring public companies to disclose the climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains.

“Climate is the granddaddy of all risk, and the Biden administration wants to shine light on it. The next logical step would be to regulate that,” Mr. Guay said. No matter what the ultimate makeup of the Senate, he added, “They have enormous regulatory powers under Dodd-Frank to curtail speculative activities that could lead to the next financial meltdown.”

That trend is already somewhat underway. Several major American banks and international banks have announced policies over the past year prohibiting or limiting investment in new oil and gas projects in the Arctic, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bank of America recently joined them. The Trump administration, which has been openly hostile to climate science and promoted fossil fuel development, has sought to force banks to continue lending to fossil fuel infrastructure.

The most immediate area in which the climate expertise on Mr. Biden’s economic team is likely to come into play is in whatever coronavirus stimulus relief package and subsequent infrastructure package Mr. Biden is able to move through Congress in the early months after inauguration.

Extending and expanding tax credits for wind and solar power is one priority area, but moving to allow the Department of Energy to fund “green” banks to support clean-energy infrastructure is likely also on the table. Officials at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged Mr. Biden and Congress to include clean energy components in an infrastructure package in a news briefing earlier this year.

“That could be a big piece in the stimulus negotiations,” said Tim Profeta, director of Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and co-author of a set of recommendations called “Climate 21” that former Obama administration climate officials released recently.

Another influential set of climate recommendations, under the heading of a “100 percent clean future,” was published in 2019 by Ms. Goldfuss and her colleagues at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank in Washington, where she is senior vice president, energy and environment policy. The president of that think tank, and a champion of that report, is Ms. Tanden, the nominee for budget office director.

The Biden administration could also advance recommendations that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued earlier this year. It called for bank regulators to roll out climate stress tests, and for a repeal of a Trump administration rule that bars retirement investment managers from considering environmental consequences in their financial recommendations.

The C.F.T.C. also called for a tax or other means of enacting a price on carbon emissions, which economists have described as the most effective way of driving down planet-warming pollution but is fiercely opposed by both conservatives and some liberal groups. Several economists who favor a carbon tax said they are not optimistic about the Biden administration supporting it.

Asked about the likelihood of Mr. Biden making a strong push on climate change in a stimulus package, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said he worries about liberal Democrats “taking him much further to the left than he ever would have chosen by himself.”

Much of the task of crafting a stimulus package with climate elements could fall to Mr. Deese. He served as a senior adviser to Mr. Obama on climate change and helped to coordinate domestic policies like limits on power-plant emissions, before most recently working for the asset management giant BlackRock as its sustainability director.

Mr. Deese helped the Obama administration implement the economic stimulus package that passed in 2009, in the midst of a recession triggered by financial crisis. Environmental groups and others credit that package, which included several enticements for low-carbon energy production, with helping to rapidly cut the cost of wind and solar power production over the course of a decade.

Ms. Goldfuss called that bill “the most successful climate policy to date in this country” and said the next stimulus package must go further, to promote electric vehicles, advanced batteries and other emissions-reducing technologies.

“Every one of those requires creating jobs, if you do it right,” she said.

Jeanna Smialek and Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.

Park It: East Bay district’s General Manager Doyle retiring Serving at helm since 2010 has capped 47 distinguished years at EBRPD

Jose Carlos Fajardo/staff archives

East Bay Regional Park District General Manager Robert Doyle, second from right, has announced his retirement at this year’s end after 47 years with the agency. Joining him above on Nov. 6, 2015, in Oakland for a ribbon-cutting to celebrate the opening of the East Bay Greenway’s first segment are, from left, EBRPD board member John Sutter, Alameda County board member Scott Haggerty, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, BART board member Robert Raburn, Alameda County board member Nate Miley and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf.

By NED MACKAY | East Bay Regional Park District

PUBLISHED: December 13, 2020 at 5:00 a.m. | UPDATED: December 13, 2020 at 5:36 a.m.

After a distinguished career of 47 years at the East Bay Regional Park District, including the past 10 as its general manager, Robert E. Doyle has announced that he will retire at the end of December. Doyle got an early start in the field of parks and natural resources. While still in high school, he served as president of Save America’s Natural Environment (SANE), a youth group in Contra Costa County who worked to acquire and preserve Las Trampas Ridge and Black Diamond Mines and to expand Mount Diablo State Park.

Later he was a founding board member of Save Mount Diablo, the nonprofit land trust and conservation organization whose name describes their mission. As board president, he increased the organization from 1,000 to 5,000 members, negotiated acquisition of 5,000 acres for Mount Diablo State Park and hired the organization’s first full-time staff. Doyle still found time to earn a bachelor’s degree in management from St. Mary’s College.

At East Bay Regional Park District, Doyle rose through the ranks. He began his park district career in 1973 as a park ranger at Tilden Regional Park near Berkeley. He also worked at Kennedy Grove, Miller-Knox, Point Pinole and Black Diamond. Ultimately, he was promoted to resource analyst, then trail specialist. He became chief of land acquisition and trail planning in 1986, then spent 20 years as an assistant general manager, leading land acquisition, trail planning and interagency and advanced planning. The park district board appointed Doyle the agency’s general manager in 2010.

In the time since he became chief of land acquisition, Doyle’s efforts have doubled the park district’s size, including 20 new parks. The district now comprises 73 regional parklands totaling 125,000 acres in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, hosting 25 million visits a year. Doyle’s many other accomplishments during his career with the park district have included:

• Conceiving and developing a multiuse regional trail master plan for Alameda and Contra Costa counties for what is now a nationally recognized multiuse urban trail system. • Expanding the district’s Regional Parks Foundation to champion private fundraising in support of park access for disadvantaged youth. • Embracing multicultural outreach efforts, including well-attended multicultural Wellness Walks and the Multicultural Advisory Committee comprising leaders from the Bay Area’s diverse cultural communities. The effort has given multicultural groups a voice in the direction of the district’s outreach efforts and a sense of participation in district decisions. • Development of youth outreach programs such as Kids Healthy Outdoor Challenge, a school- based program serving tens of thousands of children per year. • Obtaining more than $100 million in local, state and federal grants for trail and land projects. • Helping to author the park district’s 1988 $225 million Bond Measure AA and its 2008 extension, $500 million Measure WW, both of which included funds for other local park and recreation agencies. • Advocating during more than five years to advance the California State Park and Water Bond to the June 2018 ballot, working with legislators, park leaders and other constituents to become advocates for a badly needed measure. • Serving as the lead negotiator for development of a partnership with East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, which has added more than 12,500 acres to the park district. Also, among many awards and recognitions for his service to the park district and public, Doyle received the prestigious Cornelius Amory Pugsley Award in 2018, conferred by the American Academy for Park & Recreation Administration. The park district’s elected board of directors is conducting a nationwide search to select a new general manager.

“This has been a great adventure for me,” Doyle said. “For a kid who had a passion for parks to be able to preserve for public enjoyment so many beautiful East Bay open spaces.” Doyle also is gratified that the district has been able to continue its operations despite the challenges of the pandemic, the terrible wildfire season and climate change impacts. Because of the pandemic, the district has lost more than $7 million in income, while at the same time public use of the parklands has surged districtwide. So it has been a challenge for the staff to safely manage all park and trail use, Doyle noted.

“Nevertheless, we’ve been able to provide a valuable public service at a time when it is badly needed,” he said.

Doyle’s post-retirement plans include continuing involvement in parks and recreation issues but also hiking, traveling, kayaking and generally “enjoying the fruits of my labor.”

“It’s strange to be leaving after all these years,” he said, “but it’s been a great ride.”

Ned MacKay writes about East Bay Regional Park District sites and activities. Email him at [email protected].

Editorial: Biden election offers hope for preserving the Delta New administration should follow Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’ lead on California water issues

The election of Joe Biden provides an opportunity to preserve the water quality of the largest estuary west of the Mississippi. (Bob Pepping/Bay Area News Group)

By MERCURY NEWS & EAST BAY TIMES EDITORIAL BOARDS |

PUBLISHED: December 12, 2020 at 7:05 a.m. | UPDATED: December 14, 2020 at 6:46 a.m.

The forthcoming Biden administration is California’s best — and perhaps only — hope for solving vexing water issues that have largely been put on hold for more than a decade.

It should be clear that state leadership is incapable of crafting a comprehensive water strategy. The California Department of Water Resources continues to push for pumping additional water from the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta at the expense of its immediate and long-term health. Preserving the health of the Delta should be one of the state’s highest priorities. The Delta supplies fresh water for 25 million Californians, including about one-third of Bay Area residents. Scientists have repeatedly said that pumping less — not more — water from the Delta is the best way to ensure its health. And sea-level rise fueled by climate change poses the additional threat of making the Delta’s precious supply undrinkable.

Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to move forward with plans for a Delta tunnel, which still doesn’t pencil out as a cost-effective project. Every dollar spent on the Delta tunnel is a dollar that isn’t being spent on more environmentally sound efforts, including recycling, recharging ground water and water treatment projects.

The first step for the Biden administration should be a thorough house-cleaning of Trump administration officials who put politics before science. It surprised no one that Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt, fought to roll back Endangered Species Act protections that would enable additional Delta pumping. Bernhardt served from 2011-2016 as a lobbyist for Westlands Water District, taking in $1 million in fees while developing lawsuits specifically designed to do away with California’s environmental water protections.

The Biden administration should instead follow Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’ lead on California water issues. As a senator, Harris took the position that any funding for water projects should also provide environmental benefits.

Biden has indicated that he would like to make infrastructure a priority. His administration could start by backing legislation introduced in the Senate by Harris and in the House by Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. Harris called for a $3 billion investment in water infrastructure and sustainability, including storage, transport, desalination and stormwater capture projects. That innovative approach offers a better solution than environmentally questionable dam projects or the Delta tunnel.

The Bay Area should take note. The region’s residents like to believe that they are environmental leaders. But when it comes to water issues, the Bay Area has fallen behind Los Angeles, San Diego and other Southern California communities in water conservation and recycling efforts. Southern California has been reducing its urban water usage despite its population increases.

The Bay Area’s political leaders should support the Biden administration’s infrastructure efforts and put a premium on projects that increase water supply and also improve the environment. Securing the health of the Delta will preserve fresh drinking water for future generations of Bay Area residents and protect the salmon, native fish and the millions of birds who make it their home every year.

Skelton: In Becerra, Biden picked a team player who knows how to fight He’s also a truly nice guy who won’t be an administration troublemaker

Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press

It was a smart move by President-elect Joe Biden to settle on California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as his health secretary after two earlier potential nominees botched their chances.

By GEORGE SKELTON, COLUMNIST | Los Angeles Times

PUBLISHED: December 13, 2020 at 5:23 a.m. | UPDATED: December 13, 2020 at 5:48 a.m.

In Xavier Becerra, President-elect Joe Biden is getting a team player, savvy politician and competent manager — who excels at being in the right place at the right time.

He’s also a truly nice guy who won’t be an administration troublemaker, but he can be tough in a fight. And he’s Washington-ready, not a naive outsider who needs D.C. training wheels.

But, unlike many in politics, he’s not a media-seeking grandstander.

The California attorney general is unquestionably a liberal, but not a far-left radical as some Senate Republicans allege.

Becerra once said he supported “Medicare for All.” But what does that mean? Leftists who advocate for that don’t mean real Medicare, which is supplemented with private insurance. They want government-only medical coverage.

Becerra has said he favors Biden’s more moderate, practical proposal to expand the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — with a “public option” of government-funded insurance.

That’s just one of the complicated, heated battles Becerra will face as Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services, a snake pit of programs that attract fiercely competing interests and ideologies and can overwhelm someone trying to lead it.

The sprawling agency spends more than $1.4 trillion annually and is responsible for the health coverage of more than 100 million Americans, mostly through Medicare and Medicaid.

Becerra, 62, seems up to the job based on his four-year tenure as California’s “top cop” running a large bureaucracy and 12 terms previously as a U.S. House member representing Central Los Angeles. He was chairman of the Democratic Caucus and helped maneuver Obamacare through the House.

The son of working-class Mexican immigrants, he would be the first Latino U.S. health secretary if confirmed by the Senate. He also was California’s first Latino attorney general.

It was a smart move by Biden to settle on Becerra for the job after two earlier potential nominees botched their chances to become prestigious cabinet members.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a co-chair of Biden’s transition team, was eager to run HHS, according to published reports. She was offered Interior secretary instead and turned it down, upsetting the president-elect’s top advisers. She wound up getting nothing so far.

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo was about to be offered the HHS job, according to news reports. But she has kids in school and wasn’t keen on moving to Washington. She also fretted about turf — how much of a role she’d have in fighting the pandemic and vaccinating Americans. So, the governor publicly announced she didn’t want the job.

The Biden team quickly turned to Becerra, who had already been vetted and was on the short list for U.S. attorney general.

Becerra didn’t hesitate. He jumped at the offer, realizing that an opportunity to become a Cabinet secretary is usually a once-in-a-lifetime priceless gift. You’re powerful and treated like royalty, especially as a top player in a new administration. You don’t get choosy about the job or fight over turf before you’re even nominated.

Biden showed strength in sticking to his guns and not giving in to the preferences of the two governors. Becerra was in the right place at the right time — as he was in 2016 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown selected him to fill the attorney general post being vacated by Kamala Harris. Harris had just been elected to the U.S. Senate, an office she would use as a springboard to vice president-elect.

Right before the 2016 general election, Becerra was in Sacramento campaigning for two congressional candidates. At a reception, he ran into a former Washington acquaintance: the late Nancy McFadden, Brown’s top aide. They talked for a long while. Harris seemed a cinch to win the Senate seat, and Brown hadn’t decided on a replacement. McFadden started thinking: “What about Xavier?”

McFadden suggested Becerra to Brown, who was impressed with the congressman’s resume and political smarts, she told me later. The governor talked with Becerra on the phone and offered him the job.

“It wasn’t a hard decision,” she said. “It just made sense.”

It also made lots of sense for the Democrat to give up his House seat and return to his hometown of Sacramento to become state attorney general. Donald Trump had been elected president, and Republicans would control both houses of Congress.

Becerra probably caught Biden’s eye by filing more than 100 federal lawsuits against the Trump administration over, you name it: the administration’s attempts to scuttle Obamacare, its anti- immigration policies, efforts to undermine California’s environmental protections and weaken the state’s attempts to fight climate change.

Becerra has been steadily winning in court.

Critics thought he was too obsessed with suing Trump.

“We don’t wake up looking to pick a fight, but when the Trump administration threatens our people, values and resources, we’re ready,” Becerra has said.

Becerra has also been criticized by many Republicans for writing official titles and summaries of ballot propositions with a Democratic bias. And they’re right. Chalk it up to his being a party team player.

There was speculation that Gov. Gavin Newsom might select Becerra to replace Harris as senator. But that wasn’t going to happen. And Becerra wasn’t even campaigning for the Senate seat. He assumed — most likely correctly — that it will go to Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a longtime Newsom loyalist.

Maybe Becerra’s first task now should be to teach his future boss to pronounce his name. Biden butchered it twice introducing his new nominee to a national TV audience.

George Skelton is a Los Angeles Times columnist.

As leaders set fresh climate goals, Biden pledges US support By FRANK JORDANS and JEFF SCHAEFFERDecember 12, 2020

CORRECTS DATE - Activists light candles showing the slogan ' Fight For 1 Point 5' in front of the Brandenburg Gate during a protest of the Fridays For Future movement on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, in Berlin, Germany, Friday, Dec. 11, 2020. (Britta Pedersen/dpa via AP)

PARIS (AP) — U.S. President-elect Joe Biden pledged Saturday to rejoin the Paris climate accord on the first day of his presidency, as world leaders staged a virtual gathering to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the international pact aimed at curbing global warming.

Heads of state and government from over 70 countries took part in the event — hosted by Britain, France, Italy, Chile and the United Nations — to announce greater efforts in cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that fuel global warming. The outgoing administration of President Donald Trump, who pulled Washington out of the Paris accord, wasn’t represented at the online gathering. But in a written statement sent shortly before it began, Biden made clear the U.S. was waiting on the sidelines to join again and noted that Washington was key to negotiating the 2015 agreement, which has since been ratified by almost all countries around the world.

“The United States will rejoin the Paris Agreement on day one of my presidency,” he said. “I’ll immediately start working with my counterparts around the world to do all that we possibly can, including by convening the leaders of major economies for a climate summit within my first 100 days in office.”

Biden reiterated his campaign pledge that his administration will set a target of cutting U.S. emissions to net zero “no later than 2050.”

Experts say commitments put forward by the international community in the past five years have already improved the long-term outlook on climate change, making the worst- case scenarios less likely by the end of the century. But wildfires in the Amazon, Australia and America, floods in Bangladesh and East Africa, and record temperatures in the Arctic have highlighted the impact an increase of 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 Fahrenheit) since pre- industrial times is already having on the planet.

“If we don’t change course, we may be headed for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than 3 degrees (Celsius) this century,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, urging world leaders to declare a “climate emergency.”

The Paris agreement aims to cap global warming at well under 2 C (3.6 F), ideally no more than 1.5 C (2.7 F), by the end of the century. Meeting the temperature target will require a phasing-out of fossil fuels and better protection for the world’s carbon-soaking forests, wetlands and oceans.

The U.N. chief called the announced U.S. return to the Paris accord “a very important signal.”

“We look forward for a very active U.S. leadership in climate action from now on,” Guterres said. “The United States is the largest economy in the world, it’s absolutely essential for our goals to be reached.”

Biden insisted that the dramatic economic shifts needed would be positive for American workers.

“We have before us an enormous economic opportunity to create jobs and prosperity at home and export clean American-made products around the world, harnessing our climate ambition in a way that is good for American workers and the U.S. economy,” he said. American representatives at the virtual meeting included Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and U.S. business leaders, such as Apple chief executive Tim Cook.

Also absent from the event were major economies such as Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Most have offered no significant improvements on their existing emissions targets lately.

Environmental campaigners singled out Brazil’s recent announcement that it will stick to its target of cutting emissions by 43% over the next decade compared with 2005 levels and aim for net zero by 2060 — later than most other countries.

By contrast, an agreement Friday by European Union members to beef up the continent’s 2030 targets from 40% to at least 55% compared with 1990 levels was broadly welcomed, though activists said it could have aimed even higher.

China, the world’s biggest emitter, also surprised the world in September by announcing a net zero target of 2060, with emissions peaking by 2030. In his speech Saturday, Chinese President Xi Jinping provided further details on his country’s medium-term goal for improving energy efficiency and ramping up electricity generated from renewable sources of power such as wind and solar.

But Xi also cautioned that “unilateralism will lead us nowhere” — a veiled reference to discussions in the EU to impose tariffs on goods imported from countries that have less stringent emissions standards than the 27-nation bloc. The issue is likely to dominate discussion between China, the EU and the U.S. in coming years.

The Maldives, an Indian Ocean nation made up of low-lying islands that are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, announced Saturday that it will now aim to achieve net zero by 2030, one of the most ambitious goals worldwide. Bhutan and Suriname claim to have already achieved that goal.

The 189 countries that are party to the Paris agreement are required to submit their updated targets to the United Nations by the end of the year. This would normally have occurred at the annual U.N. climate summit, but the event was postponed for a year because of the pandemic.

The gathering, now scheduled to take place in Glasgow, Scotland, in November 2021, will see haggling over financial support for poor countries to cope with climate change, and fine-tuning the rules for international markets in emissions trading. Britain, next year’s host, announced this month that it’s aiming to cut emissions by 68% over the next decade and end state support for fossil fuel industry exports.

Former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who was a key player at the Paris negotiations, said leaders had a duty to be optimistic about their ability to curb global warming. “Because if we don’t, the alternative is unthinkable,” she said. “None of us adults alive today want to have on our shoulders the responsibility of turning over a world that is a world of misery for generations to come.”

___

Frank Jordans reported from Berlin.

Dianne Feinstein isn’t going anywhere as long as California’s political establishment is with her

Joe Garofoli Dec. 13, 2020 Updated: Dec. 13, 2020 4 a.m.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., heads to the Senate floor for the impeachment trial of President Trump in January.Photo: Samuel Corum / Getty Images.

It has been a rough few months for Sen. Dianne Feinstein. But unless she loses the backing of California’s Democratic establishment, the stalwart of state politics for half a century isn’t going anywhere.

Dissatisfaction with Feinstein among progressives nationally and at home coalesced in the fall over what they saw as her weak handling of the case against Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which culminated in an end-of-hearing shout-out and hug for Republican Chair Sen. Lindsey Graham. Last month, Feinstein gave up the leadership job. Whispers about Feinstein’s mental acuity grew louder last week when a New Yorker article said the 87-year-old senator is “seriously struggling” with memory loss. One seeming example took place in public: a Senate hearing where Feinstein asked the same question of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey twice, word for word. The piece reported other instances that were not public, among them that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer had to tell Feinstein more than once that she needed to give up the Judiciary Committee leadership post, because she didn’t remember he had already told her.

Quoting unnamed sources, award-winning journalist Jane Mayer wrote that “her short-term memory has grown so poor that she often forgets she has been briefed on a topic, accusing her staff of failing to do so just after they have.”

Feinstein has shown no intention of leaving the Senate before her term ends in 2024, when she will be 91. Until then, the only person who can take Feinstein out of office is Feinstein.

“If it changes, I’ll let you know,” Feinstein told CNN on Friday. A spokesman for the senator told The Chronicle that “her comment speaks for itself.”

Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego, said that “this is going to be her internal call. This is someone who has demonstrated such a commitment to her state that a lot of people will trust her to step aside when she thinks it is time.”

California voters had their chance to retire Feinstein when she ran for re-election in 2018. Instead, she defeated state Sen. Kevin de León, a Los Angeles Democrat whose name recognition was in the single digits at the start of the campaign and who could raise only a small fraction of the money pulled in by Feinstein, one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

Mayer wrote that “some who have watched the situation unfold fault Schumer, and the Democratic establishment in California, for not having intervened before Feinstein ran for re-election in 2018.”

That line pricked up a lot of ears in California, particularly among progressives — who, in fact, wanted Feinstein gone in 2018. Some of the same whispers dogging Feinstein now nationally were heard then among the political class in California.

Yet just as is the case now, no top Democrat questioned Feinstein’s faculties on the record for fear of appearing ageist, sexist or disrespectful, or just getting it wrong. Most important: No member of the state’s Democratic establishment turned on her.

Kousser doesn’t expect that to change.

“Nobody has the incentive to ask her to step aside,” he said. “People are still pissed that Kevin de León had the temerity to challenge her in an open election. If it was considered disloyal to run against her in that situation, imagine how disloyal it would be to publicly ask her to do that now.”

In 2018, de León said California was “looking for new leadership” and that it was “time for a new generation.” Others said Feinstein’s style of bipartisan outreach was rooted in a bygone era, and that she needed to speak “loudly and clearly” against President Trump in a new, more partisan time.

The executive board of the California Democratic Party endorsed de León, even after Feinstein drubbed him in the primary that year. The state’s powerful California Labor Federation, with 2.1 million members, backed him as well. The group’s executive secretary-treasurer, Art Pulaski, said de León was more closely allied with organized labor “on good jobs, climate change, $15 minimum wage, protecting immigrant workers and supporting the right to stand together in a union.” In 2012, the labor organization had endorsed Feinstein.

Grassroots activists said de León, now 54, represented the future of the Democratic Party. Raised in near poverty by a single mother in San Diego, he clawed his way up the political ladder to be state Senate president pro tem. He was instrumental in passing climate change legislation and the state’s sanctuary law. He was a Latino candidate in a state where 40% of residents are Latino.

Progressive power was surging in the state party after the 2016 presidential run of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who narrowly lost the California primary to eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Feinstein had lost many progressives when she told a San Francisco audience in 2017 that she hoped Trump “has the ability to learn and to change. And if he does, he can be a good president. And that’s my hope.”

When de León challenged her, Feinstein altered her positions on a couple of issues, such as dropping her support for the death penalty. But on a broader level, she didn’t change course.

“I’m not a name-caller. I don’t call people names,” she told The Chronicle’s editorial board. “My job is to get legislation passed or get problems solved or find money to help solve those problems.”

Feinstein’s lowest moment of the campaign came when she addressed the state party convention in February 2018. Music began playing as she exceeded her allotted time on stage. Feinstein kept talking, saying, “I guess my time is up.”

De León supporters, who dominated the convention floor, chanted, “Your time is up! Your time is up!” In a vote, 54% of the convention delegates supported endorsing de León. It was short of the 60% needed for the full party to endorse, but it was embarrassing for Feinstein.

But the Democratic establishment did not abandon Feinstein — the establishment and the state party are two different things. The state’s top leaders, including then-Gov. Jerry Brown and then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Kamala Harris, all backed her.

So did nearly every California House Democrat, with Rep. Ro Khanna of Fremont one of the notable exceptions. Democratic state Sen. Toni Atkins of San Diego, who would succeed de León as Senate leader, was one of the few prominent state party leaders to back the challenger.

“Elected officials are risk-averse,” said Amar Shergill, chair of the progressive caucus of the California Democratic Party, who supported de León. “Kevin de León was a great candidate, but there simply was not enough money to break through the establishment’s favored candidate.”

Feinstein locked up the state’s top donors. She raised nearly $24 million, including $8 million she loaned herself from her estimated net worth of $88 million. DeLeon raised less than $2 million. Feinstein’s top strategist, Bill Carrick, said at the time that DeLeón “owns his own fundraising problems.”

Yet even San Francisco environmentalist Tom Steyer, a billionaire who worked with de León on climate legislation, chipped in a mere $16,200 for his friend to go along with his endorsement.

East Contra Costa Fire takes next step toward possible consolidation Beleagured district will spend up to $30,000 to consider potential annexation

KNIGHTSEN, CA – OCTOBER 27: Firefighters battle a grass fire on East Cypress Road in Knightsen, Calif., on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2019. The grass fire originated 3:08 am on Gateway Blvd. on Bethel Island as reported by the East Contra Costa Fire Department. The fire then spread to a second location on East Cypress Road at 5:45 am. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group)

By JUDITH PRIEVE | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: December 10, 2020 at 12:29 p.m. | UPDATED: December 11, 2020 at 5:39 p.m.

East Contra Costa Fire Protection District has agreed to share costs for a study on potential consolidation with Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The action Wednesday came after a consultant, AP Triton Consulting, which East Contra Costa Fire hired, determined the annexation into ConFire would be “viable” and “cost-effective” after analyzing the district’s finances.

“We’re recommending you take the next step (a full, in-depth study), which will enhance and result in a more cost-effective organization,” AP Triton’s Kurt Latipow told the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District board.

In West Contra Costa County, the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District also is expected to consider whether consolidation with Contra Costa Fire is cost-effective and will solve its financial and staffing issues.

Earlier this fall, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District spent $10,000 on the first phase of the study and now has allocated up to $30,000 on Phase 2, which will be a comprehensive financial and operational analysis of an annexation. The three districts will share the total cost of Phase 2, expected to be about $50,000.

East Contra Costa Fire board President Brian Oftedal said the district may hold community town hall forums later, depending on what the report concludes.

An independent rural fire district, East Contra Costa Fire serves 128,000 residents over nearly 350 square miles in Brentwood, Oakley, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Discovery Bay and Morgan Territory, but has long lacked adequate financial resources.

East Contra Cost Fire has three stations with three firefighters each — half what is recommended for a district of its size. Without adequate resources, the district has leaned heavily on neighboring agencies, which themselves are strained.

Previously served by volunteers and composed of several city and town departments, the rural fire district was created in 2002 and had eight stations at its height that year. Without adequate resources, though, over the years it has had to cut back.

The district is funded almost entirely by property taxes, which were locked in the 1970s with the passage of Proposition 13, restricting the total property tax levy to 1% of a property’s assessed value.

Over the years, the district and Brentwood and Oakley have all placed initiatives on the ballot to fund reopening stations, but all parcel tax assessments and utility tax measures have failed.

Consolidation also has been previously considered, but the plan was dropped as it was determined East Contra Costa Fire would burden the other districts. The latest analysis, however, concluded that property taxes have increased at a rate of 8% annually, additional real estate development is anticipated and there is a projected cumulative cash flow for the first six years of a consolidated model of more than $8 million.

The consultant also noted additional sources of revenue to fund operations should be explored, including pursuing the possibility of acquiring a portion of the monies that will become available through the recently passed Measure X countywide half-cent sales tax.

Phase 2 of the study is expected to take about five months to complete, while the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has the power to approve such consolidations, would take another six months to complete its analysis before any annexation could begin, he said. East Contra Costa Fire Chief Brian Helmick said the initial consolidation study showed that with existing revenue, the district could add two stations in two years, though it would not be sustainable indefinitely.

“I think this is the most responsible move we can make,” East Contra Costa Fire Director Adam Langro said of the resolution to further study consolidation.

Director Joe Young also applauded the initial report, which he said demonstrates that the two districts can consolidate and exist with beneficial results. The district still needs to know the long- term effects, but those will be addressed in the final phase of the study, he said.

“I think this the right thing to do,” Young said as he motioned to approve the resolution. “I think we need to move forward with this.”

Column: Legislators return with new bills to help Californians hurt by the COVID-19 pandemic

Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

By GEORGE SKELTONCAPITOL JOURNAL COLUMNIST

DEC. 14, 2020 12 AM

SACRAMENTO —

Like little flowers emerging from a charred landscape, some promising pandemic relief bills are sprouting in a California Legislature devastated by COVID-19.

They’ve scarcely been noticed in the fixation over President Trump’s immoral, undemocratic attempt to overturn the voters’ election of Joe Biden — and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s French Laundry dining and unemployment benefit debacles.

Newsom, however, made a smart move last week in an attempt to right his foundering governorship. He recruited the politically savvy Dee Dee Myers to be a senior advisor and head his agency — GO-Biz — that’s supposed to help expand California business.

The California native is best known for being the first female White House press secretary — for President Clinton — but since then has worked in corporate communications, including as a vice president for Warner Bros.

Newsom, Myers and legislative leaders should take a serious look at some of the pandemic-related bills that were introduced when the Legislature convened its new session last week.

But the measures face a harsh terrain that has been damaged by efforts to control the virus’ spread in the Capitol.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak in March, the Legislature has been upended by restrictions. The Capitol is barred to outsiders — policy experts, lobbyists and the public. Many committee hearings are relegated to awkward Zoom meetings. Mask-wearing lawmakers are confined to distancing. They can’t buttonhole one another on the chamber floors to discuss bills and negotiate. An indispensable tool of good legislating is face-to-face dickering. That hasn’t been happening. One result was that the Legislature adjourned for the year in August amid excessive feuding between the two houses, especially among the leaders.

“The process is screwed up,” Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced) says. “It’s difficult to navigate through this. It’s hard to organize the committees. They’re not as transparent and public as they should be.”

Gray introduced a bill, AB 62, that would allow small businesses and those deemed essential — such as healthcare facilities, emergency services and food processing — to take a dollar-for-dollar tax credit on virus-protection expenses required by the state. Covered would be such things as employee testing, masks, ventilation systems and plexiglass barriers.

The credit would be taken on state tax returns. Spend $20,000 protecting employees and customers, and your taxes would be reduced by that amount.

The cost to the state treasury in lost tax revenue? Lots.

“Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars,” says Gray spokesman Adam Capper. “Whatever it costs, that’s how much [state] regulations cost California businesses.”

“Instead of putting our money where our mouth is,” Gray says, “state regulators continue to push the costs associated with COVID-19 onto employers, many of whom are already struggling to keep their doors open….

“I can already hear those who created and supported these regulations saying the state cannot afford to spend the billions of dollars it will likely cost. Well, now you know how small-business owners feel.”

Newsom estimated last week that the state would garner a $15.5-billion tax windfall in the next fiscal year. Recently, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projected an even higher surplus — $26 billion.

State Sen. Andreas Borgeas (R-Fresno) introduced a bill, SB 74, that would require the state to spend 10% of its surplus — whatever the size — on grants to small businesses.

Newsom recently set aside $500 million for small-business grants. The governor also allowed most businesses to delay, for three months, handing over to government the sales taxes they collect.

Borgeas contends that isn’t enough. “California deserves more aggressive investment in business relief efforts to revitalize our economy,” he says.

Borgeas’ bill probably doesn’t stand a prayer given he’s a lowly Republican in a Legislature that Democrats control with supermajorities in each house. But it’s still a good idea. Maybe a Democrat can steal it.

The GOP senator, a law professor, has also been pressing Newsom for data that justify restaurant shutdowns, especially outdoor dining.

“What surprised me is they don’t have that information,” Borgeas says. “Restaurants being locked down deserve to understand whether it’s science-driven. Restaurants are trying to make their case, and they’re not being heard.”

Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) introduced a bill, AB 61, that would allow local governments to permit restaurants to expand outdoor dining — once it’s legal again.

Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill, AB 10, that would require public schools to reopen once infection rates drop. Local districts would have less control over when they resume classroom teaching.

The state would have to provide more clarity to its safety guidelines, Ting says. Under his proposal, there could be hybrid teaching — a mix of in-person and distanced.

“Right now, many schools that are open are flouting guidelines,” he says. “It’s not clear whether they’re requiring students to wear masks and if desks are distanced.”

But the vast majority of public schools are closed.

“It’s harder to teach online,” Ting notes. “Harder to keep kids’ attention. There are fewer hours of instruction. Many kids aren’t even showing up for class….

“I’m worried about the learning loss — also the social isolation. Kids want to be around other kids. They want to see the teacher. We have to do better.”

Gray says politicians — and everyone — should come together as they did in World War II, set aside partisanship and unite behind combating the virus and saving small businesses.

“Stop the finger-pointing and blame — the debating masks vs. not masks,” Gray says. “Focus on everybody helping everybody get through this tough time. “That’s my wish for Christmas.”

That may be asking too much from Santa.

Biden taps Buttigieg for transportation, Granholm for energy By MICHAEL BALSAMO, JONATHAN LEMIRE, THOMAS BEAUMONT and ELLEN KNICKMEYERDecember 15, 2020

FILE - In this July 28, 2016, file photo, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm speaks during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Biden is expected to pick his former rival Pete Buttigieg as secretary of transportation and Granholm as energy secretary. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Joe Biden nominated his former rival Pete Buttigieg as secretary of transportation on Tuesday and intends to choose former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm as his energy secretary. Biden also plans to tap Gina McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency chief, for the powerful new position of domestic climate chief to run his ambitious climate plans across the federal government.

All three will be central to Biden’s plan to remake the country’s automobiles and transportation systems to quickly cut climate-damaging petroleum emissions.

Buttigieg would be the first openly gay person confirmed by the Senate to a Cabinet post. At 38, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, would also add a youthful dynamic to an incoming administration that is so far dominated in large part by leaders with decades of Washington experience.

Biden said in a statement that Buttigieg was a “patriot and a problem-solver who speaks to the best of who we are as a nation.”

Granholm, 61, served as Michigan’s attorney general from 1999 to 2003 and two terms as Michigan’s first female governor, from 2003 to 2010. She was a supporter of Biden’s presidential bid and has spoken out against President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results, accusing him of “poisoning democracy.”

The intended selections of Granholm and McCarthy were confirmed by three people who were familiar with one or both of the picks. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly before the president-elect’s announcement.

Biden is steadily rolling out his choices for Cabinet secretaries, having already selected former Obama adviser Tony Blinken as his secretary of state, retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin as his secretary of defense and former Fed Chair Janet Yellen as his treasury secretary. He’s also picked former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reprise that role in the Biden administration, and Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge to serve as housing secretary.

Meanwhile, New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland is considered a lead contender to become interior secretary despite Democratic worry that her departure would leave them with a perilously thin majority in the House. Haaland, a member of New Mexico’s Pueblo of Laguna, would be the first Native American to lead the Interior Department if confirmed.

Buttigieg became a leading figure in national politics when he was among those who challenged Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Initially written off as the leader of a relatively small town competing against far more established figures, Buttigieg zeroed in on a message of generational change to finish the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses in a virtual tie with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

His campaign stumbled, however, in appealing to Black voters who play a critical role in Democratic politics. As the primary moved into more diverse states such as South Carolina, Buttigieg faltered and quickly withdrew from the race. His backing of Biden ushered in a remarkably swift unification of the party around its ultimate nominee. Biden’s selection of Buttigieg for transportation secretary drew praise from LGBTQ rights groups, with one calling it “a new milestone in a decades-long effort” to have LGBTQ representation in the U.S. government.

“Its impact will reverberate well-beyond the department he will lead,” added Annise Parker, president and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Institute.

The South Bend chapter of Black Lives Matter, however, denounced Buttigieg’s pending nomination. The group had made their displeasure of Buttigieg known during his presidential campaign, following the 2019 South Bend shooting of a Black man by a white police officer.

“We saw Black communities have their houses torn down by his administration,” BLM’s South Bend leader Jorden Giger said in a statement, referring to Buttigieg’s effort to tear down substandard housing. “We saw the machinery of his police turned against Black people.”

If confirmed as transportation secretary, Buttigieg will be charged with implementing Biden’s proposals to spend billions making major infrastructure improvements and on retrofitting initiatives that can help the U.S. battle climate change. He also wants to immediately mandate mask-wearing on airplanes and public transportation systems to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Meanwhile, as energy secretary, Granholm will have a role in executing Biden’s promised $2 trillion climate plan, billed as the nation’s broadest and most ambitious effort to cut fossil fuel emissions that are dangerously warming Earth’s atmosphere.

Biden’s plan includes overhauling the nation’s transportation and power sectors and buildings to eliminate fossil fuel emissions by 2050.

As governor, when Granholm faced an economic downturn before the Great Recession struck, she sought to diversify the state that is home to the Detroit Three automakers by emphasizing the growing “green economy.” The state pushed incentives to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, advanced batteries and electric vehicles, and she signed a law requiring that more of Michigan’s energy come from renewable sources.

After leaving office, she moved to California to teach at the University of California, Berkeley. She is a political contributor on CNN.

As domestic climate chief, McCarthy will spearhead Biden’s ambitions for a massive, coordinated domestic campaign to slow climate change. Her counterpart in climate efforts will be former Secretary of State John Kerry, earlier named by Biden as his climate envoy for national security issues.

The selection of McCarthy is in line with Biden’s pattern of picking tested, familiar figures from his time as vice president. McCarthy, 66, served as EPA administrator from 2013 to 2017 during President Barack Obama’s second term and was assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation in Obama’s first term.

She led initiatives that cut air and water pollution and signed the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature effort to address climate change by setting the first national standards for reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants. Trump later scrapped the plan, and moved to support climate-damaging coal, oil and gas.

___

Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa, and Knickmeyer reported from Oklahoma City. Associated Press writers Matthew Daly in Washington, David Eggert in Lansing, Mich., and Aamer Madhani in Wilmington, Del., contributed to this report.

OPINION Walters: Is California losing its business mojo? Two stalwarts of the Bay Area’s high-tech community are departing for Texas

Susan Walsh/Associated Press

Elon Musk is the founder of the Tesla electric car company and other high-technology firms.

By DAN WALTERS |

PUBLISHED: December 15, 2020 at 12:44 p.m. | UPDATED: December 16, 2020 at 3:59 a.m.

The timing could not have been more ironic.

As veteran Democratic operative Dee Dee Myers — she was Bill Clinton’s press secretary at one point in her lengthy career — became Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new ambassador to business this month, three of California’s biggest and best known corporate entities announced moves to arch-rival Texas. The splashiest émigré is Elon Musk, founder of the Tesla electric car company and other high-technology firms, who had already chosen Texas for expansions of his automobile and space businesses.

Musk revealed his personal move at a business conference and compared California to a sports team with a long winning streak, saying, “they do tend to get a little complacent, a little entitled, and then they don’t win the championship anymore.” California, he said, “has been winning for a long time. And I think they’re taking them for granted a little bit.”

Very quickly, two other stalwarts of the San Francisco Bay Area’s high-tech community also announced departures to Texas, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. and software giant Oracle.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise is building a “state-of-the-art” campus near Houston for 2,600 workers and said, “HPE’s largest U.S. employment hub, Houston, is an attractive market to recruit and retain future diverse talent.”

Oracle, which is moving its headquarters to Austin, said, “We believe these moves best position Oracle for growth and provide our personnel with more flexibility about where and how they work.”

The three announcements — and Musk’s comments especially — renew a question that has hovered over California for several years: Do the state’s high taxes, high operating and living costs and a political drift to the left make it hostile to business? And, parenthetically, does Texas, which has no personal income tax and is a reliably conservative, pro-business state, benefit from that perceived hostility?

“Anyone who doesn’t believe that this latest departure isn’t a threat to California’s economy is a business climate denier,” Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, said in a statement. “We are watching the unraveling on one of the world’s mightiest economies and the consequences will be devastating. California for too long has willfully ignored our awful business climate, even as we’ve enjoyed incredible success and prosperity.”

Wunderman added, “We can’t afford to dither any longer or California will permanently lose hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs to states like Texas that place value on business and investment.”

Clearly the COVID-19 pandemic has had an effect on corporate attitudes. Many employers are now embracing work-at-home arrangements that make physical location less important and the Bay Area has been seeing an outward migration to communities, such as Sacramento, with less congestion and lower housing costs as a result. In that sense, moving headquarters staff to low-cost Texas buys more bang for the buck and makes perfect sense.

But there are other recent developments that may have a cumulative effect. They include state legislators’ calls for higher personal and corporate taxes, political efforts to help unions organize workers in the high- tech sector, legislation to dictate corporate board memberships, and direct slaps such as San Francisco’s new tax on corporations whose chief executives are paid over 100 times more than their rank-and-file workers.

We may have reached a tipping point in which the disadvantages of doing business in California outweigh the advantages. We should remember what happened to Detroit, which was the Silicon Valley of its day a century ago, but took its prosperity for granted and paid a heavy financial and social price for its complacency.

Good luck, Dee Dee. You’ll need it.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

Editorial: California’s budget is surprisingly flush with a tax surplus

Chronicle Editorial Board Dec. 14, 2020

The budget surplus is a rare good news development for Gov. Gavin Newsom in a difficult year.

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

Californians may have missed one of the biggest surprises of this pandemic year. Sacramento is swimming in a tax surplus, and the amount is in the tens of billions. A worried, shut-in population may think that state government is hurting along with them, but that’s not the case by a long shot.

The state’s economy is suffering with a jobless rate that’s jumped in a year from 3.9% to 9.3%. Downtowns and strip malls are boarded up. The ranks of retail and restaurant workers are decimated. But California’s tax system, skewed to soak the rich, is reaping a windfall. Taxes on soaring stock market trading and wealthy earners are bringing in the dollars. Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that come July, the fiscal year will start with a $15.5 billion surplus. That’s down from predicted $26 billion offered last month by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office that advises state government. In either case, it’s a sizable bulge on a $202 billion state budget.

Now the battle begins over what to do with the extra money, and whether the numbers can be trusted. There is no shortage of tin cups waving in the state Capitol. Expect to hear the idea of “investment” in favored causes of the Democratic Legislature. Schools, safety net programs and health coverage will be on this list, and that’s no crime given this state’s sorry economic shape. Education was cut along with worker wages this year when the financial picture appeared dire.

But the problem is the future, specifically two or three years from now. Ever-changing financial predictions suggest there will be shortfall of $17 billion in three years. If that estimate pans out, legislators and the governor will need to either cut the programs they’ve expanded or try for new taxes.

Remember, though, that state voters just rejected a change in property taxes designed to hit commercial properties. Voters may feel pained by the pandemic-wrought damage to state finances, but they don’t appear to be in any mood to approve higher levies.

One way forward was suggested in the state analyst’s report on the rising surplus. The analysis recommended a even split between one-time expenses such as bridges, roads and quick-hit pandemic bailouts while saving the rest of the money for future years. That idea wouldn’t put California on the hook for continuing bills, while locking down money for hard times ahead. There was also a suggestion, stretched as it sounds, that the Legislature give serious thought to long-term finances in a time of ever- rising costs and expectations.

The numbers leave lawmakers with an odd dilemma. Having too much money can be just as bad as having too little. The pressures to spend will naturally build: More child care is needed, wildfires demand more prevention work and housing subsidies may be the only way to ease a serious shortage. The list goes on, and lobbyists are prepped to work. No elected official wants to disappoint an aggrieved group with an appealing — and vote-getting — argument.

The tensions are sure to build as Newsom approaches a January date to present his first draft budget. That will lead to the real work when the Legislature digs in, the bargaining starts, and another reading of state’s financial picture happens in May. The final spending plan emerges in June before its July 1 enactment date.

The billions in surplus funds badly fooled state financial predictors, who, naturally enough, believed the pandemic would crater the tax picture. But almost the opposite has happened. Lower and middle incomes have dropped sharply, but there was still a surge from high earners who power the state receipt system.

California’s volatile tax structure may have saved the day in a horrific year. But it’s setting the stage for a struggle on how best to plan and prepare for uncertain times ahead. Sacramento must be watchful and thrifty, now more than ever.

UC Berkeley’s Jennifer Granholm is Biden’s pick for Energy, signaling shift to green policies

Joe Garofoli Dec. 16, 2020 Updated: Dec. 16, 2020 6:03 p.m.4

Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm speaks at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 28, 2016.Photo: Paul Sancya / Associated Press

Environmental groups see President-elect Joe Biden’s choice of Jennifer Granholm, a former Michigan governor who teaches at UC Berkeley, to lead the Department of Energy as a sign that he intends to shift the agency’s focus toward championing renewable energy and combating climate change. Granholm, a 61-year-old Oakland resident who teaches at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School for Public Policy, would be the second woman to lead the 14,000-employee department. Its focus has long been on maintaining the nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, but that is not Granholm’s area of expertise.

Granholm has long advocated for renewable energy sources. She founded the American Jobs Project, a 30-state research effort aimed at exploring how to create more clean-energy manufacturing jobs.

Biden said during the campaign that he wants to spend nearly $2 trillion over four years on increasing renewable power and creating incentives to build more energy-efficient buildings, homes and cars. Biden says this would create 10 million jobs in the clean-energy sector, triple the current total.

Some of that program would need to get through Congress. But some could be put in place through administrative actions, which is where Granholm and the Energy Department come in.

Granholm worked with then-Vice President Biden to rescue Michigan’s decimated auto industry during Barack Obama’s first term as president. Her expected nomination as Biden’s energy secretary was first reported Tuesday by Politico.

Last month, in an op-ed in the Detroit News, Granholm praised companies like Ford for setting ambitious clean-energy goals, writing that “acting on climate change is good business sense.”

“However, the private sector needs greater support and political will from our policymakers to help us fully realize the potential of a zero-carbon future,” Granholm wrote. “The economics are clear: The time for a low-carbon recovery is now.”

“It’s a phenomenal choice for multiple reasons,” said Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at UC Berkeley who has worked with Granholm. With her knowledge of the fossil fuel sector and what is needed to transition to clean power, “she absolutely gets it in terms of how the critical elements fit together,” Kammen said. “Plus, she has experience managing large institutions” as Michigan governor from 2003 to 2011.

Even though most of the Energy Department’s work focuses on maintaining the nation’s nuclear stockpile, top environmental leaders say Granholm’s nomination is a sign that at least part of its mission will shift.

Sara Chieffo, vice president of government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, said there is “a ton that can be done there to reorient and speed up the deployment — and the research — on clean energy.”

She added, “We’re really excited about (Granholm) and her ability to do that.”

Granholm also won praise from Sunrise, a progressive, youth-run environmental organization that has been unhappy with some of Biden’s other picks for his administration. The organization criticized Louisianan Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, for example, for taking campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies. Biden has named him as director of the Office of Public Liaison. Granholm’s nomination “is a signal to us that the Department of Energy is going to be retooled to respond to the existential crisis of our time — the climate crisis. And that’s a welcome shift to us,” said Sunrise’s Bay Area political team lead, Sasan Saadat.

The choice of Granholm, along with Biden’s nomination of former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg as transportation secretary and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, fit a pattern. Biden is choosing people based on their experience leading a bureaucracy or working across state and federal jurisdictions rather than on their technical expertise in a particular field.

All three share another trait: They are strong communicators.

Many Americans know Granholm from her years as a commentator at CNN, starting in 2017. Her upbeat energy and communication skills will be helpful in her new job, too, Kammen said, should the Senate confirm her.

“She is incredibly inspirational,” Kammen said. “And that will be needed.”

Granholm has long had a personal connection to Biden. In 2008, she helped prepare him for his vice presidential debate with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Granholm played the role of Palin.

Her Bay Area connections run deep, too. She was born in Canada and immigrated to California when she was 4 years old. She lived in San Carlos and graduated from San Carlos High School in 1977. Starting in 2012, she hosted “The War Room,” a nightly political talk show, for a little more than a year on Current TV in San Francisco.

Another Californian long thought to be on Biden’s short list for a Cabinet position, however, is watching her chances fade in response to opposition from environmental justice advocates.

Mary Nichols, whose term as chair of the California Air Resources Board ends Dec. 31, was thought to be a front-runner to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, whose international leadership on climate issues is widely recognized, told The Chronicle last month that Nichols would be a strong federal administrator because “she’s been through all the fights.”

Nichols led the battle over the implementation of California’s cap-and-trade system. The program sets annual limits on how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases California industries can emit, forcing companies either to buy credits for every ton of gas they produce or cut their pollution. The limits — and available credits — decrease over time, reducing emissions.

But several dozen environmental justice groups sent a letter to Biden this month urging him not to choose Nichols because of her “bleak track record in addressing environmental racism.” The cap-and- trade program, the letter said, concentrates pollution in low-income communities of color, which are frequently located near industry.

Nominating Nichols would be a mistake, given that Biden made environmental justice the centerpiece of his climate plan, said Gladys Limon, executive director of California Environmental Justice Alliance. Nichols “has not only failed to advance our climate goals, but has exacerbated the impacts on our communities,” Limon said Wednesday.

That letter from environmental justice groups has badly hurt — but not killed — Nichols’ chances to lead the agency, a source close to the Biden transition team told The Chronicle. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the process freely.

Although Nichols is still in the running, the source said, the opposition has boosted the chances of another Californian to lead the EPA: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. He campaigned nationally for Biden and was seen as a top contender to be transportation secretary before Biden chose Buttigieg.

Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer.

December 17, 2020 For Immediate Release

President-elect Biden Announces Key

Members of His Climate Team This team will advance the president-elect’s agenda leading the world to confront the climate crisis — creating good-paying union jobs, building resilient communities, and making historic investments in

environmental justice WASHINGTON — Today, President-elect Joe Biden announced key nominations and appointments of his climate team: Congresswoman Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior; Governor Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy; Michael Regan, EPA Administrator; Brenda Mallory, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality; Administrator Gina McCarthy, National Climate Advisor; and Ali

Zaidi, Deputy National Climate Advisor. The undeniable, accelerating, punishing reality of climate change is exacting an incalculable toll on lives and livelihoods in every community across the country. This team knows that science demands we address climate change immediately and that our response must be grounded in science. The team will turn the climate crisis into an unprecedented opportunity to create millions of good paying union jobs in communities across the country; powering our economy with clean energy and positioning the United States as an exporter of 21st century products; and making our economy stronger and more resilient. They will work closely with communities who bear the outsized burden of environmental injustice, including Tribal Nations and communities of color, and young Americans who will live with the long-term consequences of climate change. President-elect Joe Biden said, “This brilliant, tested, trailblazing team will be ready on day one to confront the existential threat of climate change with a unified national response rooted in science and equity. They share my belief that we have no time to waste to confront the climate crisis, protect our air and drinking water, and deliver justice to communities that have long shouldered the burdens of environmental harms. Together, on behalf of all Americans, they will meet this moment with the urgency it demands — and seize the opportunity to build back better with good-paying union jobs, climate-resilient infrastructure, and a clean energy future that benefits every single community.” Vice President-elect Kamala Harris said, “From the wildfires across California and the west to the storms battering our coasts, our climate crisis is a grave and growing threat to the American people and the planet we all share. On the campaign, President-elect Biden and I proposed one of the most ambitious climate plans in history. The team we are announcing today will help make that plan a reality. They are seasoned public servants and climate experts who reflect the very best of our country. They have the knowledge and experience to confront this global challenge head-on with our allies and partners around the world. And they are the team the American people need and deserve to help protect our communities — and our planet — for generations.” This tested team of bold thinkers know how to pull every lever of government to take on the urgent, existential threat of climate change:

• Congresswoman Deb Haaland is nominated to serve as Secretary of the Interior. Haaland is a barrier-breaking public servant who has spent her career fighting for families, including in Tribal Nations, rural communities, and communities of color. Currently serving as Vice Chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Haaland will be ready on day one to protect our environment and fight for a clean energy future. If confirmed, she will make history as the first-

ever Native American Cabinet secretary.

• Governor Jennifer Granholm is nominated to serve as Secretary of Energy. A two-term Governor of Michigan whose work during and after her tenure has centered on creating clean energy jobs in America, Granholm’s leadership was instrumental in rescuing the U.S. auto industry, saving one

million jobs, and preparing Detroit for a clean energy future.

• Michael Regan is nominated to serve as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The current Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Regan has served in the EPA under both Democratic and Republican presidents and has a distinguished track record of bringing people together across the public, private, and non-profit sectors to advance

environmental justice and seek solutions to environmental and climate challenges.

• Brenda Mallory, an accomplished public servant and environmental lawyer, is nominated to serve as Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. A former General Counsel to the CEQ and current Director of Regulatory Policy at the Southern Environmental Law Center, Mallory brings deep and versatile expertise working directly with communities and partners across the public and private sectors to solve climate challenges and advance environmental protection and environmental justice. If confirmed, she would be the first African American to hold the position

since its creation more than half a century ago.

• Administrator Gina McCarthy will serve as the first-ever National Climate Advisor, heading up the newly formed White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, where she will drive an “all of government” approach to combating climate change. A leading voice on climate and environmental issues for more than 30 years, McCarthy was a driving force behind the Obama- Biden Administration’s groundbreaking Clean Power Plan during her tenure as Administrator of

the EPA.

• Ali Zaidi, a leading climate expert and longtime advisor to the president-elect, will serve as Deputy National Climate Advisor. Zaidi helped draft and implement the Obama-Biden Administration’s Climate Action Plan and negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement. Zaidi

immigrated from Pakistan and grew up in the Rust Belt outside Erie, Pennsylvania.

The following White House announcements were made today: Congresswoman Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior Congresswoman Deb Haaland currently serves as the Representative for the First District of New Mexico in the House of Representatives — one of the first two Native American women elected to the United States Congress. As a single mom and someone who has lived paycheck to paycheck Haaland knows the struggles many families face. A longtime organizer, Haaland has spent her career advocating for the needs of her community. In Congress, she holds leadership positions including the 116th Congress Freshman Class Representative to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, House Democratic Region VI Whip, and Deputy Whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is also the Vice Chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Vice Chair of the

Democratic Women’s Caucus. Prior to her election to the U.S. House, Haaland was an entrepreneur and advocated for environmentally sustainable business practices. Additionally, Haaland served as Chairwoman of the New Mexico Democratic Party — the first Native American elected to lead a state party. Haaland, whose mother served in the Navy and whose father was a Marine, also serves as an Honorary Commander of Kirtland Air Force Base. She earned a B.A. from the University of New Mexico and a

J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law. Governor Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy

Jennifer Granholm served as Michigan’s 47th governor for two terms, and was the first woman to lead the state in its history. During her tenure, she oversaw the statewide response to the Great Recession, working closely with the Obama-Biden Administration to rescue the U.S. auto industry — a feat widely credited with saving one million American jobs. Granholm’s chief focus as governor was on retooling and electrifying the auto industry to prepare it for durable global leadership and in-state job growth; her efforts to diversify the Michigan economy by sparking a new clean energy sector have served as a state and national model for future economic and job growth. Prior to her tenure as Governor, Granholm was elected to serve as the Attorney General of Michigan, and was the first woman to hold this position. She is the founder of the American Jobs Project, a multi- state, multi-university initiative promoting technological advancements and clean energy policies to spur U.S. job creation, and has helped drive clean energy policy nationwide as an advisor to the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Clean Energy Program and as a professor at the University of California’s Goldman School of Public Policy. Granholm is affiliated with the California Institute for Energy and Environment and the Berkeley Center for Information Technology Research in the Interests of Society (CITRIS), where she is a Senior Research Fellow. An immigrant from Canada who has been a U.S. citizen for more than 40 years, Granholm received her bachelor of arts degree from University of

California, Berkeley, and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. Michael Regan, EPA Administrator

Michael Regan currently serves as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Bringing a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of the environment, economy, and public health, Secretary Regan conceptualized and operationalized North Carolina’s Executive Order 80 — a landmark effort to address climate change’s impact and transition the state’s energy economy. Regan led the negotiations that resulted in the cleanup of the Cape Fear River, which had been contaminated with dangerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS), negotiated and oversaw the largest coal ash cleanup in the United States, and created North Carolina’s first Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Board to address societal disparities exacerbated by environmental issues during his tenure as Secretary. Secretary Regan’s subject matter expertise in the realm of environmental, energy, economic, and equity issues is apparent in his lifelong record of public service. He previously served at the EPA under both Democratic and Republican presidents — leading initiatives at the agency to improve energy efficiency and air quality and mitigate pollution — and was an Associate Vice President of the Environmental Defense Fund focused on climate issues. He also founded M. Regan & Associates to help organizations navigate challenges at the intersection of energy, the economy, and the environment. Regan earned his bachelor’s degree from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and his master’s degree from The George Washington University. Brenda Mallory, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality

Brenda Mallory currently serves as Director of Regulatory Policy at the Southern Environmental Law Center. An experienced public servant and longtime champion of environmental stewardship, she has been an environmental leader at the intersection of law and policy in the public,

private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years. Prior to her current role, Mallory served as Executive Director and Senior Counsel at the Conservation Litigation Project, where she led efforts to protect public lands and promote scholarship around emerging natural resources issues. Mallory has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, including as General Counsel on the White House Council on Environmental Quality and as the Principal Deputy General Counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama-Biden Administration. She also served as Chair of the Natural Resources Practice Group during her time at the environmental law firm Beveridge & Diamond. With roots in Connecticut, Mallory is a graduate of Yale College and

Columbia University School of Law. Gina McCarthy, National Climate Advisor

Gina McCarthy served as the 13th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is currently the President and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. One of the nation’s most trusted and accomplished voices on climate issues, she has been at the forefront of environmental and

public health progress in a variety of leading roles for over three decades. In her time leading the EPA, McCarthy oversaw successful efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, mitigate air pollution, conserve critical water sources, and safeguard vulnerable communities from chemical hazards. She spearheaded the Obama-Biden Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which set America’s first-ever national standards for lowering carbon emissions from power plants, and helped pave the way for the Paris Climate Agreement. Prior to her current role with the NRDC, McCarthy was a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and currently serves as chair of the board of directors of the Harvard Center for Climate,

Health, and the Global Environment. Throughout her career, McCarthy has advised five administrations of both Democratic and Republican Massachusetts governors on environmental matters, and she served as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection prior to being appointed by President Obama to head up the EPA’s Air Office. As EPA administrator, she pursued innovative global collaborations with the United Nations and the World Health Organization, and on global efforts to address pollution. Born and raised in Boston, McCarthy graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston and earned a master of science at Tufts University. Ali Zaidi, Deputy National Climate Advisor

Ali Zaidi currently serves the state of New York as Deputy Secretary to the Governor for Energy and Environment and Chairman of Climate Policy and Finance, and leads the state’s efforts on climate change — driving investment into infrastructure and innovation, empowering workers and communities, and boosting economic and environmental resilience. An adjunct professor at Stanford University — where he has taught graduate courses on technology policy and studied the fiscal and financial impacts of climate change — Zaidi co-founded Lawyers for a Sustainable Economy, a Stanford-coordinated initiative that equips sustainability-focused startups with pro bono legal services. A longtime advisor to President-elect Biden on climate matters, Zaidi brings the cross-sector and multi- disciplinary experience needed to deliver a whole-of-government response to the climate crisis. During the Obama-Biden Administration, Zaidi served as Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science for the Office of Management and Budget and as Deputy Director of Energy Policy for the Domestic Policy Council — helping to design and implement a wide range of domestic and international policies. Zaidi has advised non-profits, including as a Trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and counseled the private sector, as an attorney who helped launch a sustainable investment practice. Zaidi immigrated from Pakistan and grew up outside Erie, Pennsylvania. He received an A.B. from

Harvard University and J.D. from Georgetown University.

AP sources: Biden to pick Rep. Haaland as interior secretary By ELLEN KNICKMEYER December 17, 2020

FILE - In this March 5, 2020, file photo Rep. Deb Haaland, D-N.M., Native American Caucus co- chair, joined at right by Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, speaks to reporters about the 2020 Census on Capitol Hill in Washington. O.J. Semans is one of dozens of tribal officials and vote activists around the country pushing selection of Haaland to become the first Native American secretary of Interior. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

President-elect Joe Biden plans to nominate New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland as interior secretary, according to two people familiar with the decision, a historic pick that would make her the first Native American to lead the powerful federal agency that has wielded influence over the nation’s tribes for generations.

Tribal leaders and activists around the country, along with many Democratic figures, cheered Haaland’s selection after urging Biden for weeks to choose Haaland. They stood behind her candidacy even when concerns that Democrats might risk their majority in the House if Haaland yielded her seat in Congress appeared to threaten her nomination.

With Haaland’s nomination, Indigenous people will for the first time see a Native American at the table where the highest decisions are made — and so will everyone else, said OJ Semans, a Rosebud Sioux. “It’s made people aware that Indians still exist,” he said.

Haaland, 60, is a member of the Laguna Pueblo and, as she likes to say, a 35th-generation resident of New Mexico. The role as interior secretary would put her in charge of an agency that not only has tremendous sway over the nearly 600 federally recognized tribes but also over much of the nation’s vast public lands, waterways, wildlife, national parks and mineral wealth.

The pick breaks a 245-year record of non-Native officials, mostly male, serving as the very top federal official over American Indian affairs. The federal government often worked to dispossess them of their land and, until recently, to assimilate them into white culture.

Her selection was confirmed by two people familiar with the decision who wasn’t authorized to speak about it publicly and spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity on Thursday.

Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez described himself as “overjoyed” and said in a statement, “It is truly a historic and unprecedented day for all Indigenous people.”

Biden’s pick could further deplete, at least temporarily, the narrow majority Democrats maintain in the House. Biden has already selected several lawmakers from the chamber, including Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond and Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge, to serve in his administration.

Some on Biden’s transition team had expressed concerns about dipping further into the already thinned out Democratic House majority for another senior administration posting. But Biden decided that the barrier-breaking aspect of her nomination and her experience as vice chair of the House committee on natural resources made her the right pick for the moment.

The president-elect has been methodically filling the posts in his Cabinet, adding North Carolina environmental official Michael Regan as his nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Earlier this week, Biden introduced former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg as his transportation secretary, and he intends to make former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm his energy secretary.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it clear Wednesday that Biden had her blessing to choose Haaland, saying she would make an “excellent choice” as interior secretary.

The speaker called the New Mexico congresswoman “one of the most respected and one of the best members of Congress” with whom she has served.

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and a close Biden ally, also supported Haaland for the job.

Haaland, one of the first two Native American women elected to the House, said she could see the difference her position made for ordinary Native Americans who came to her with business before the federal government.

“They felt comfortable just launching into the issues they wanted,” Haaland told The Associated Press in an interview before her appointment. They would say, for example, “Oh, we don’t have to explain tribal sovereignty to you,” meaning tribes’ constitutionally guaranteed status as independent nations.

Scores of tribal officials around the country and dozens of Democrats had written letters urging Haaland’s appointment.

Haaland, is vice chair of the House Committee for Natural Resources. She previously worked as head of New Mexico’s Democratic Party, as tribal administrator and as an administrator for an organization providing services for adults with developmental disabilities.

Born to a Marine veteran father and Navy veteran mother, Haaland describes herself as a single mother who sometimes had to rely on food stamps. She says she is still paying off student loans after college and law school for herself and college for her daughter.

When Democrats mentioned former Interior Department officials who were male and Native American as alternatives to Haaland, her supporters charged sexism and classism, and stuck with the New Mexico Democrat.

Haaland told the AP before her selection that regardless of what job she had, she’d be working to “promote clean energy and protect our public lands.”

Interior’s broad authority includes managing federal relations with tribes, administering tens of millions of acres of land and mineral rights held in trust for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, running national parks and making decisions affecting millions of miles of U.S. lands and waterways, wildlife, endangered species, and oil and gas and mining. Biden has promised the nation’s broadest effort yet to curb the oil, gas and coal emissions that are causing the rapid deterioration of the climate, and Interior would play an important part in that.

Previously, the highest-ranking administration official known to have Native American heritage was Charles Curtis, who served as Herbert Hoover’s vice president and whose mother was one-quarter Kaw tribe.

___

Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani in Wilmington, Del., contributed to this report.

Opinion: Ten pieces of good news for the environment in a dismal 2020 Joe Biden’s election, China’s new climate targets and the decline of coal highlight the list of hopeful signs

(AP Photo/Matthew Brown, File)

Coal is on its way out, writes Maximilian Auffhammer. There are subsidies galore and no price on carbon where coal is being burned. And still it can no longer compete.

By MAXIMILIAN AUFFHAMMER |

PUBLISHED: December 18, 2020 at 6:10 a.m. | UPDATED: December 21, 2020 at 3:37 a.m.

I’m so over 2020. So, in the interest of “glass half full,” here is my top 10 list of good things that happened to the environment this year:

1. The election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Team Joe has managed to make climate change and the new energy economy a pillar campaign theme that resonated with the public for the first time in U.S. history. Their ambitious plan of action, if implemented, will make significant headway in fighting the causes and consequences of climate change.

2. China’s climate targets. China has historically fought against emissions targets that were not tied to economic activity. This has changed. China has embarked on a serious path toward carbon neutrality. This. Is. A. Huge. Deal.

3. Renewables and storage are getting cheaper. Solar and wind continue their march toward being the cheapest source of electricity available. Across the world we are seeing record after record fall. That makes grid-scale storage the final frontier, and things look promising there as well.

4. Coal is on its way out. Sing it. The swan song. Light it. The cigar. It’s over. What has happened to coal in the past year exceeded even the Lorax’s wildest expectations. And let’s remember, U.S. coal is still benefiting from an uneven playing field. There are subsidies galore and no price on carbon where this stuff is being burned. And still coal can no longer compete.

5. Vehicle manufacturers are onboard with higher fuel economy. The Obama administration implemented aggressive fuel economy standards, which the Trump administration torpedoed. Turns out vehicle manufacturers don’t want the relaxation in standards as much as they would like a single set of standards across the country and some regulatory certainty.

6. Progress on social cost of carbon. The Trump administration reversed Obama-era efforts to properly account for the damages from climate change in federal regulations by changing the social cost of carbon to $1-$7 per ton of carbon dioxide from $42 and stopping all research. Folks at Resources for the Future and Cal’s Climate Impact Lab have pushed the necessary research along so the new administration can hit the ground running. 7. Satellites! Methane! We do not know where a large share of the emissions of the super- greenhouse-gas methane emissions is coming from. New satellite technology will allow us to detect even small leaks of methane at oil and gas wells and in pipeline infrastructure. Knowing where you have a problem is an important first step to successful regulation.

8. The swan song of the combustion engine. I love cars. I never thought I would say this, but I would take a dual motor electric beast over American muscle any day. Just make EVs cost competitive and prettier (come on Nissan!). California and Europe basically laid down the law: Car companies, you have to figure out how to make EVs that have range and that people can afford and want by 2035.

9. Trucks. I grew up in a trucking family. I have dispatched, loaded and driven big trucks. I love big trucks. But I realize that they are seriously bad for the environment and cause massive health damage, often affecting poorer communities of color. California’s advanced truck rule is a first step to fixing this market failure. 10. Environmental justice. 2020 may be the year that even economists finally understood that efficiency is not the only “e” worth thinking about. Equity concerns have finally entered — arguably much too late — the economic discipline’s main stage and the way we will evaluate the economic impacts of environmental policies.

So, yes, 2020 sucks. But let’s take solace in the fact that a few really great things happened this year that will allow us to build a better future for everyone on this planet.

Maximilian Auffhammer is a professor in sustainable development and associate dean of social sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

Biden may time confirmation votes to protect House majority By LISA MASCARODecember 18, 2020

FILE - In this Sept. 17, 2020, file photo, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, of S.C., speaks during a news conference about COVID-19, on Capitol Hill in Washington. President-elect Joe Biden brings more Capitol Hill experience than any president in decades. But his transition has stumbled, exposing the challenges of navigating Congress. “A strong belief that my dad drilled into my head: First impressions are lasting, and you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression,” Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black lawmaker in Congress and a top Biden ally, said in an interview Thursday, Dec. 17. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to tap several House Democrats for administrative positions is putting Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a politically tough spot, having chiseled away at the party’s already slimming majority and leaving her potentially without enough votes to pass his legislative agenda.

Democrats already were heading into the new Congress with a razor-thin margin over Republicans. But Biden’s overture to a third lawmaker, Rep. Deb Haaland, D-N.M., as the history-making first Native American interior secretary, set off a fresh round of pained conversations on what to do. Pelosi will start the Biden era with a narrow majority, 222- 211, with a few races still undecided.

But Pelosi’s leadership team has a plan.

“We need to manage something like this,” Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and a top Biden ally, said in an interview with The Associated Press this week.

According to Clyburn, an emerging strategy is to stagger the confirmations: Biden would hold off on formally submitting the nominations all at once so the House numbers don’t immediately drop.

Under the plan, timing would unfold over the first several months of the new Congress, ample time for the House to pass the 100-days agenda, a typically important but symbolic, legislative sprint that takes on new importance aligned with Biden’s presidency.

Biden’s first pick from the House, Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., would join the administration quickly once the president-elect is inaugurated Jan. 20, Clyburn said. Richmond is poised to become a senior adviser, a position that doesn’t require confirmation by the Senate.

Biden would then wait to submit the other two nominees, Haaland and Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, who was tapped as housing secretary, until after the March special election in Louisiana to fill Richmond’s seat.

The lawmakers can remain in the House, voting as members, until they are Senate confirmed. Their nominations could be sent one after the other, in the months that follow.

“Just manage it,” Clyburn said.

The three House seats are in Democratic strongholds and expected to be off-limits to Republicans. But special elections can throw curveballs, and the staggered timing would also give the campaigns ample running room to shore up the candidates and races.

Democrats are already deep into political soul-searching after a dismal November outcome for House Democrats. Biden’s victory had short coattails as they lost seats and saw their majority shrink. Moderate lawmakers and strategists blamed progressives for pushing the party’s message too far leftward; progressives complained it was centrists who ran timid campaigns without a bold message to attract voters.

Pelosi is a master vote counter on the House floor, but even her skills will be tested in the new Congress, starting with her own election for another term as speaker. If even a few Democratic lawmakers object or peel off, passing bills in the new Congress could be difficult.

In an extreme scenario, Republicans could even try to wrest control of the gavel and the majority. If the numbers dipped so low — with illnesses or other absences, which are likely during the COVID-19 crisis — Republicans could try to force a floor vote on the issue.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said Friday that the departures of the three lawmakers would combine with existing divisions among Democrats to make governing “very hard” for Pelosi.

“On any given vote when your margin is as narrow as this, a few people can be mad about something totally unrelated to the vote and just take it out on you,” Cole said.

The danger zone was close enough that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warned Biden last month off taking any more Democrats from his ranks.

“I thought it would be difficult if, in fact, members of the Congress were selected,” Hoyer told reporters this week. “The margin was very close.”

A similar scenario has played out in the Senate, where Biden has refrained from naming senators to administrative positions because of the narrow GOP hold.

The Senate breakdown will be 51-48 when the new Congress is sworn in Jan. 3, with the majority not yet decided until two Jan. 5 runoff elections in Georgia. One of the runoffs involves a sitting Republican senator.

In some ways, the closely split House could provide an opportunity for Biden to reach across the aisle and try to cut bipartisan deals with a centrist agenda that could attract some Republicans.

But so far, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy has signaled movement in the opposite direction. He wants to use floor procedures as political weaponry to gum up the bills with Republican priorities and force vulnerable Democrats into tough votes.

Republicans used the strategy with some success in the current session of Congress, producing campaign ads against Democrats seeking reelection. McCarthy, his own shot at seizing the majority for Republicans in 2022 now within reached, warned shortly after the November election there would be more floor battles to come. McCarthy said while Republicans won’t have the majority in the new year, they will “run the floor.”

To block those efforts, Democrats are considering rules changes proposed by Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., that would raise the threshold on those votes to a two-thirds majority to make it more difficult for Republicans to change the bills.

Yet the first legislation of the new Congress may not be too difficult for Pelosi to pass, even with a slimmer majority.

The agenda is likely to be rooted in H.R. 1 through H.R.9 - the first nine bills of the last Congress — popular Democratic measures on voting rights, lowering prescription drug prices, raising the minimum wage and requiring background checks for gun purchases that most Democrats have already voted for.

_____

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

Bay Area home prices maintained record in November, despite out-migration

Kathleen Pender Dec. 17, 2020 Updated: Dec. 17, 2020 6:42 p.m.7

Real estate agent Linette Edwards gives Jonny Price a tour of a single family home for sale on Orchard Court in Orinda, Calif., on Wednesday, December 16, 2020.Photo: Scott Strazzante / The Chronicle

Bay Area home prices maintained their record levels last month, despite sluggish population growth.

The median price paid for an existing, single-family home in the Bay Area was $1.1 million in November, unchanged from October’s record and up 18.9% from last November. Sales were down 7.3% from October but up 34.4% from November 2019, according to a California Association of Realtors report released Thursday. On Wednesday, the California Department of Finance reported that the state’s population grew only 0.05% between July of this year and last, its slowest pace since 1900. More people moved out of California to other states than vice versa, immigration slowed, the birth rate dropped and the death rate increased.

In the Bay Area, the population declined in Napa, Sonoma, Marin and San Mateo counties. It rose in the five other counties, but at slower rates than the previous year. San Francisco had the “fastest” growth rate, 0.31%.

“We did see an uptick in out-migration (statewide), but the population still increased,” said Jordan Levine, the association’s deputy chief economist. “Even if there was less demand (for homes) this year, we are still up against 30 years of underbuilding. There is still such an imbalance of supply and demand, which is one reason we are seeing out-migration.”

And even though people are moving out of the Bay Area, if more renters decide to buy homes in the area, prices could go up.

Jonny and Amie Davis owned a home in Oakland’s Rockridge neighborhood for seven years. But now that they have a 6-month old daughter and are both working from home, they needed more space and made a quick decision to sell it.

“We decided on a Wednesday, put it on the market the following Monday, because Rockridge was nuts. Another house sold up the road sold for an amount we couldn’t quite fathom,” Jonny said. They listed the 1,647-square-foot home, as “coming soon,” at roughly $1.2 million on Oct. 16. Seven days later, they accepted a $1.69 million offer and closed seven days after that. But now they’re on the other side, house hunting in Oakland, Lafayette and Orinda in an overheated market.

“If it’s a good property, it will sell in days. You have to make a decision really quickly,” Jonny said. They’re renting a home for six months from a family that wanted to get away while their kids aren’t in physical school. Jonny hopes things will calm down before their lease runs out.

“Maybe we are taking a bet the market can’t continue to go so crazy all the way into next year,” he said. “There are certain places where I can’t see how it can continue.”

The family’s agent, Linette Edwards of Abio Properties, said, “The majority of my listings are selling with multiple offers. The migration continues. People in San Francisco and (downtown) Oakland are buying into the East Bay for the yards and space. In Contra Costa County, a lot of people are selling and buying homes in more remote areas.”

Edwards said about three-fourths of the roughly 30 sellers she has represented since the pandemic began moved out of state. “Covid has spurred people to move faster in their life plans.” One seller decided to retire earlier than planned, sold his home in Walnut Creek and moved to Puerto Vallarta.

But, she said, competition for single-family homes is still strong because inventory is limited and people are still moving into the area from out of state. Condos, on the other hand, represent “a great buying opportunity.”

The median price paid for a Bay Area condo last month was $750,000, up 1.4% from October and up 2.7% from November 2019.

The median is the price at which half of homes sold for more and half for less, and can be influenced by changes in market mix. For example, if buyers purchase more entry-level homes and fewer luxury homes, the median can go down even if prices overall went up.

A home at 3930 Canyon Road in Lafayette listed at $899,000 attracted 33 offers and sold this month for a whopping $1.75 million, even though it was in such disrepair that many prospective buyers didn’t even enter the property.

“I thought it was a teardown. It was not a good candidate for a flip,” said listing agent David Otero of Highland Partners. “I was expecting it to sell in the $1.1 million to $1.2 million range.”

The previous owner was 102 and died in the home.

“It had a ton of settlement, mold” and floor damage from a leaking roof, he added. Light fixtures had been removed and replaced with hanging bulbs, and a failed attempt to create a basement ended up looking like an “underground bunker.”

But the home had an acre of land in the coveted Happy Valley neighborhood. It was left in a trust to Tulane University, which was thrilled to get the sales proceeds for its education fund, Otero said. Levine noted that the Bay Area led the state in sales growth last month, but that’s partly because at this time last year, it was “a little slow out of the gate when the rest of the state was ramping up. The (Bay Area’s) growth rates are slightly exaggerated” because of that.

Normally, the real estate market slows down in November and December. One reason that it’s still going strong is “pent-up demand that couldn’t express itself in April and May,” when sales slowed to a crawl because of strict limits on showings and economic uncertainty. Open houses are still banned.

“We also might be borrowing some sales from next year. Folks want to get in before (mortgage) rates go up,” Levine said. “There’s also a structural component — folks have more flexibility on where they can live. They also have more needs; our homes are more important to us than ever before.”

With the first doses of the coronavirus vaccine being distributed, and the economy opening up, “we are going to see ongoing pressure on prices,” he predicted.

Kathleen Pender is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kathpender

How the Economy Is Actually Doing, in 9 Charts

By Ella KoezeDec. 17, 2020

Nearly a year after the coronavirus outbreak, the full impact of the pandemic on the U.S. economy remains unclear. Some of the most obvious indicators are in conflict: As some companies report enormous profits, nearly 10 million more Americans are now unemployed compared with last February, and over one million filed new state and federal unemployment claims last week.

Are we still in the early stages of a long recession, or will the rollout of vaccines mean we’ll soon see the end of a short-term crisis? How much are people suffering now, and for how long will the effects of the past 10 months persist?

We asked economists and experts with a variety of backgrounds how they would measure the state of the economy now and what indicators they thought were often overlooked. Here are eight measures they suggested.

More than four million people left the work force entirely from February to November, meaning they are neither working nor actively seeking a job. (To be counted as unemployed, a person must have looked for a job in the last four weeks or be on a temporary layoff.) Several of the economists we spoke to mentioned the dip in labor force participation as a cause for concern — and a factor that can contribute to a falling unemployment rate, without people actually finding work.

Eliza Forsythe, a labor economist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

Many jobs carry substantial risk of contracting Covid-19, so individuals with health concerns may be sitting out of the labor market. And with many schools operating remotely and childcare closed, many parents are forced to choose between a paycheck and supervising their kids.

More women than men are leaving the work force, research has shown, often because of additional child care and household obligations that emerged during the pandemic. This can have long-term ramifications on women’s careers and earning potential.

Janelle Jones, a labor economist at Groundwork Collaborative, an economic policy center focused on addressing inequality:

The caregiving crisis intensified by the pandemic has forced women to choose between employment and care work. And all of this is particularly pressing for Black women. A large majority of Black mothers are contributing significantly to keeping their households afloat. Women of color are more likely to be single parents than white women, meaning the decision between caregiving in the home and entering the labor market is more likely to fall on them.

Though many workers who were temporarily laid off in the spring have returned to work, a growing subset has been unable to find new jobs despite actively looking. Among Americans who are still in the labor force but are unemployed, the share who have been out of work for more than six months has been increasing since April.

Alix Gould-Werth, a sociologist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a nonpartisan, left-leaning think tank:

When the long-term unemployment rate increases and workers leave the labor market, it is an indicator of a very serious problem in connecting people who are able to produce needed goods and services with the opportunity to do so.

Seasonally adjusted except for unemployment rates for Asian men and women.·Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Several of the experts surveyed were concerned that the pandemic recession was widening economic gaps among different demographics.

Kathryn Edwards, a labor economist at the RAND corporation:

Policy responses to recession are never perfect; they always err on the side of something. But we’ve learned in the past, erring on the side of stingy recovery and assistance can scar individuals, families and communities for years.

People of color were already more likely to be unemployed before Covid-19, and the current crisis has had a particularly negative, persistent impact on employment for Black men.

Janelle Jones, a labor economist who focuses on inequality: Black men are facing an unemployment rate of 11.3 percent, over five percentage points higher than the rate facing white men. For context, never during the Great Recession did overall unemployment rates surpass 10 percent.

Both Ms. Edwards, the labor economist, and Ms. Gould-Werth, the sociologist, noted that measures of material hardship are less readily available than many other statistics. This means that decision makers have the least information about the people who are undergoing the most hardship in a crisis.

Kathryn Edwards:

I worry about the things we don’t measure. We don’t have indicators of the economic well- being of workers and families that are reliable, comparable and timely. The same detail with which we have unemployment and labor force numbers — monthly estimates by age, race, sex, education, occupation, industry and state — should be produced to measure poverty; food access and hunger; housing security, eviction, and homelessness; and health access and use, among others.

Alix Gould-Werth:

Long-term unemployment rate, stock of discouraged workers and measures of material hardship are all extremely underexamined in comparison to indicators like stock market indexes and the unemployment rate. Indeed, until the Household Pulse survey started tracking food and housing insecurity, we lacked real-time measures of material hardship.

Rising housing costs put strain on low-income renters. In a Pew study published in September, lower-income respondents were more likely to have lost their job since February and to have had problems paying their rent or mortgage. In July, 52 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds were living with at least one parent, the highest level since the Great Depression. Home prices have also risen, which is good news for homeowners but not for lower-income people who want to buy homes.

Susan Wachter, a real estate economist at the University of Pennsylvania:

It is inequality which is, to my mind, the major challenge to the economy going forward, exacerbated by the impact on housing markets, with rents up, wages down and housing prices increasingly unaffordable and mortgages increasingly difficult to access for first time homebuyers. Renters faced with higher rents cannot save and cannot access the major way of wealth-building for America’s families: homeownership.

The rise in housing prices is being driven by a large increase in new home sales as people are spending more time at home and mortgage rates have fallen to record lows. Though these high prices make buying a home increasingly unaffordable for many, the spate of home-buying may stimulate the economy.

Tim Duy, a professor of macroeconomics at the University of Oregon:

The housing numbers for new home sales are at levels last seen during the housing bubble. This is typically associated with strong economic growth.

Despite all these warning signs, there is evidence that we are on track for a rapid recovery, several experts we spoke to said. One promising development is that productivity, which measures how much the economy can produce with the amount of labor and resources that go into it, is still growing. Growth in productivity is linked to increases in living standards. The V-shaped recovery of wages and salaries is a positive sign, too.

Tim Duy:

It reveals to me that the underlying economy is more resilient and less dependent on fiscal stimulus than commonly believed. Moreover, it is another contrast with the last recession — it took years to recover from the drop of wages and salaries that occurred then.

Though the pandemic has altered Americans’ day-to-day lives, it hasn’t halted their spending as much as some feared it would. Rather, consumption has shifted toward goods over services — buying alcohol from stores instead of from bars, for example — bucking a generational trend toward a service economy.

Michael Gapen, the head of U.S. Economic Research at Barclays:

I think the economy showed a tremendous resilience and I think that the degree to which households shifted their behavior and spending patterns and then the degree to which how quickly the economy turned on a dime to be able to satisfy that — there’s a lot of flexibility that was shown by businesses and households during the pandemic.

Countless businesses have been forced to close over the course of the pandemic. However, a sign that the economy may be adapting rather than totally halting is the increase over last year in new business applications.

Steven Hamilton, an economics professor at George Washington University:

One of the few bright spots during the pandemic has been a surge in new business formations, reflecting those laid off taking up self-employment, but more significantly the strength of household balance sheets built up through the crisis putting them in a position to start new businesses. While these are nowhere near as large as the closures, we kind of have to take what we can get in a crisis of this scale.

A resilient but increasingly unequal economy.

Alone, none of these metrics can tell a complete story of the pandemic economic crisis. Taken together, they show that, more than 10 years after the Great Recession, the economy has proved itself adaptable to extreme circumstances. But almost all the economists we surveyed, even the most optimistic, agreed on the need for swift fiscal policy to alleviate short-term suffering and prevent long- term harm. Several stimulus programs are set to expire at the end of December, and any new legislation Congress passes now to replace them is likely to take weeks to implement. Ms. Jones, the labor economist who focuses on racial disparities, called for Congress to act boldly: “The fact is that the risks of doing too little to help the economy are enormous,” she said, “while the risks of doing too much are tiny.”

These indicators also show that some people are already getting left behind in an uneven recovery as others feel few impacts, or even flourish. The pandemic crisis “has drawn a tremendously bright and vivid line between the affected and the not affected,” Mr. Gapen said. “If you’re in the pool of the affected, I think it’s been just an awful year.”

In Last Rush, Trump Grants Mining and Energy Firms Access to Public Lands

The outgoing administration is pushing through approval of corporate projects over the opposition of environmental groups and tribal communities.

The Oak Flat area of the Tonto National Forest, east of Phoenix. Under a Forest Service plan to create a copper mine, much of Oak Flat would be destroyed.Credit...Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times

By Eric Lipton Dec. 19, 2020

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is rushing to approve a final wave of large-scale mining and energy projects on federal lands, encouraged by investors who want to try to ensure the projects move ahead even after President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. takes office. In Arizona, the Forest Service is preparing to sign off on the transfer of federal forest land — considered sacred by a neighboring Native American tribe — to allow construction of one of the nation’s largest copper mines.

In Utah, the Interior Department may grant final approval as soon as next week to a team of energy speculators targeting a remote spot inside an iconic national wilderness area — where new energy leasing is currently banned — so they can start drilling into what they believe is a huge underground supply of helium.

In northern Nevada, the department is close to granting final approval to construct a sprawling open- pit lithium mine on federal land that sits above a prehistoric volcano site.

And in the East, the Forest Service intends to take a key step next month toward allowing a natural gas pipeline to be built through the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia, at one point running underneath the Appalachian Trail.

These projects, and others awaiting action in the remaining weeks of the Trump administration, reflect the intense push by the Interior Department, which controls 480 million acres of public lands, and the Forest Service, which manages another 193 million acres, to find ways to increase domestic energy and mining production, even in the face of intense protests by environmentalists and other activists.

When he takes office on Jan. 20, Mr. Biden, who has chosen a Native American — Representative Deb Haaland, Democrat of New Mexico — to lead the Interior Department, will still have the ability to reshape, slow or even block certain projects.

Some, like a planned uranium mine in South Dakota, will require further approvals, or face lawsuits seeking to stop them, like the planned helium drilling project in Utah. But others, like the lithium mine in Nevada, will have the final federal permit needed before construction can begin, and will be hard for the next administration to stop.

Whether they are the final word or not, the last-minute actions are just the latest evidence of how the far-reaching shift in regulatory policy under Mr. Trump has altered the balance between environmental concerns and business, giving substantial new weight to corporate interests.

Mr. Trump chose former industry executives to run major federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, and industry executives and lobbyists who cycled in and out of government positions were granted substantial influence in setting regulations.

For four years, Mr. Trump’s team and its allies have raced to roll back federal rules intended to protect federal lands and the nation’s air and water, as well as other safety rules in agencies across the government. The changes were often made in direct response to requests from lobbyists and company executives who were major donors to Mr. Trump and frequent patrons at his hotels and resorts.

The final push on the mining and energy projects has come in part from senior Trump administration officials, including the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, a steel industry investor before joining Mr. Trump’s cabinet.

Mr. Ross’s calendar shows at least three appointments with top executives at Rio Tinto, the Anglo- Australian mining giant backing the Resolution Copper mine planned for construction in Arizona next to the San Carlos Apache reservation. Mr. Ross also made a trip to the mine site this year.

“As far as I am concerned, this is an invasion by a foreign power,” said Wendsler Nosie Sr., a former San Carlos Apache tribal leader who is protesting against the copper mine in Arizona.Credit...Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times

“This is a disaster,” said Wendsler Nosie Sr., a former San Carlos Apache tribal leader who in recent weeks has been camping out at the proposed mine site inside the Tonto National Forest to protest the pending decision.

Backers of these projects say they are committed to minimizing the effect on public lands, sacred Native American sites and wildlife.

“Our science-based decisions are legally compliant and based on an extensive process involving input from career subject matter experts and the public,” said Richard Packer, an Interior Department spokesman, adding that the agency “continues to balance safe and responsible natural resource development with conservation of important surface resources.”

The administration has been seeking to promote more mining of key minerals, including uranium, copper and lithium, to allow the United States to be less dependent on imports.

But the environmental consequences of these projects, if they move ahead as planned, will be considerable.

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency gave its final approval for the construction of a new uranium mine called the Dewey-Burdock project, spread over 12,613 acres near the Black Hills region of South Dakota.

The project would inject a chemical called lixiviant into more than 1,461 wells, sending the chemical into an underground water supply. The chemical would cause uranium trapped in sandstone below the surface to leach into the aquifer, contaminating the water but allowing the uranium to be captured, extracted and transformed into so-called yellow cake that can be used to fuel nuclear power plants.

Nationally, just 174,000 pounds of uranium was produced last year in the United States. The South Dakota project alone would have the potential to produce as much as one million pounds of uranium a year, although it is unclear whether there will ever be sufficient demand to justify production at that level, given that there is already excess capacity at uranium mines in the country.

The Oglala Lakota Nation, whose 2.8 million-acre reservation is adjacent to the proposed uranium mine, has sued to block the project. The mine would be built on property that the Sioux tribe has long claimed was illegally taken by the United States.

“The voice of Indigenous people needs to be heard — and federal Indian policy has made us invisible and dehumanized us,” said Kyle White, 34, a member of the Lakota tribe and its former director of its natural resources regulatory agency.

A small piece of the project is on Interior Department land. The department has not yet approved the mine and will not act until after Mr. Trump leaves office, one of several ways that the Biden administration could slow or block the project.

Azarga Uranium, the Canada-based backer of the project, did not respond to a request for comment.

For the proposed Resolution Copper Mine, east of Phoenix in the Tonto National Forest, adjacent to Apache tribal land, the Forest Service is expected to issue its long-awaited final environmental assessment by mid-January.

Sixty days after the assessment is released, a 2,422-acre chunk of the Tonto forest, an area called Oak Flat, will automatically be transferred to the mining companies in exchange for land nearby, a deal mandated by Congress in 2014.

The Interior Department’s own National Register of Historic Places lists the Oak Flat area as “a holy place and ancestral homeland to the Western Apache Indians” that is also “a venue for ongoing Apache participation in traditional social activities, and is associated with traditions rooted in the history” of the tribe. Under the current Forest Service plan, much of Oak Flat would eventually be destroyed. Starting about six years after underground blasting and extraction at the mine begins, the mine will gradually start to cave in on itself, forming a crater nearly two miles wide and as much as 1,100 feet deep, according to federal estimates.

The project would create 3,700 jobs and supply as much as one billion pounds of copper per year, a quarter of the current annual demand in the United States.

“That was one of the major reasons why President Trump moved so aggressively to reduce the red tape involved in such projects,” Mr. Ross said, in remarks during his visit to the site in October.

The companies running the project — Rio Tinto and BHP, also based in Australia — have promised to build a campsite outside the mine area to replace one traditionally used by Native Americans in the Oak Flat area. Rio Tinto said it was also working to ensure there was no damage to a nearby area called Apache Leap, where according to tribal legends, Native Americans being chased by U.S. Cavalry troops in the late-1800s jumped to their deaths. But the ire of some members of the local San Carlos Apache Tribe toward Rio Tinto only intensified after the company admitted using dynamite to destroy a 46,000-year-old sacred Indigenous site in Australia as it expanded an iron ore mine.

A Forest Service employee working on the Arizona project acknowledged to community leaders in a recent conference call that pressure to get the evaluation of the project done quickly was “coming from the highest level,” mentioning the Agriculture Department, which oversees the service.

Federal records show that the environmental study until recently was expected to continue until the middle of 2021. It is now slated to be finished by mid-January. An agency spokeswoman did not respond when asked to comment on claims that the process was being rushed. But Andrew Lye, the project manager for Resolution Copper, said the review had actually taken longer than expected and been very thorough. “It is not being fast-tracked and Resolution Copper has not sought to apply for programs that are available to expedite projects,” Mr. Lye said.

Another mining project expecting imminent action by the Trump administration is in rural Nevada, where Canada-based Lithium Americas intends to build one of the world’s largest lithium mines on 5,500 acres of federal land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

Lithium is a vital ingredient in myriad batteries, including for cellphones and electric cars, but almost none of it is produced in the United States.

The project was listed in July by the Interior Department as one that it intended to “fast track,” and it planned to take the final step in early January, meaning construction of the mine could begin soon.

But the Bureau of Land Management’s own environmental assessment acknowledges that the project will cause harm, including to the habitat of a threatened bird species known as sage grouse. Local ranchers and other families have expressed concern in comments to the agency that the project could cut the available local water supply and create other environmental problems.

The push to approve some of the projects has involved sustained lobbying and legal efforts by hired consultants with close ties to the Trump administration.

Those include Rebecca Watson, who served as the top Interior Department official in charge of oil and gas leasing during the Bush administration, working at the time alongside David L. Bernhardt, who is now the interior secretary.

Ms. Watson worked with other industry players over several years to urge lawmakers and senior officials at the Interior Department to change rules to allow her clients, now including Colorado-based Twin Bridges, to extract helium for more than a decade from federal lands, including land Twin Bridges has leased in Utah.

The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness area in Utah is famed for its pristine expanses, red-rock canyons and Bowknot Bend.Credit...Ray Bloxham/Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Ms. Watson said in an interview that increasing the supply of helium was critical to the nation. “Helium has a lot of strange little uses that people are not even familiar with, but they’re really important,” she said.

With time running out on the Trump administration, senior Interior Department officials were so determined to see the permit approved that they took control of the project from the local Utah office. Final action is now expected as soon this coming week, two agency officials said, even though the agency itself again acknowledges that the project will harm the area. Environmentalists filed a lawsuit on Dec. 14 to try to block it.

David Wallace, an executive at Twin Bridges, said the project could ultimately generate hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of royalty and tax payments to federal, state and local governments.

“We also love these lands and are committed to our project enhancing, and not detracting from, them,” he said in a statement.

Opponents of the projectsare keeping up pressure to try to stop them. That includes Mr. Nosie, who is camping out most nights on the sacred Oak Flat that could soon be transferred to Rio Tinto.

“As far as I am concerned, this is an invasion by a foreign power,” Mr. Nosie said. “We cannot afford to lose our identity and our history. Imagine if the biblical Mount Sinai became a location for mining and it caved in and disappeared. You would not stand by and watch.”

Lisa Friedman contributed reporting.

Biden Introduces His Climate Team, Says 'No Time to Waste'

President-elect Joe Biden says the United States needs a unified, national response to dealing with climate change just as it has for COVID-19. By Associated Press, Wire Service Content Dec. 19, 2020, at 5:43 p.m.

Biden Introduces His Climate Team, Says 'No Time to Waste'

President-elect Joe Biden announces his climate and energy team nominees and appointees at The Queen Theater in Wilmington Del., Saturday, Dec. 19, 2020. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BY KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — Just as the United States has needed a unified, national response to COVID-19, it needs one for dealing with climate change, President-elect Joe Biden said Saturday as he rolled out key members of his environmental team.

“We literally have no time to waste," Biden told reporters as introduced his choices.

The approach is a shift from Donald Trump’s presidency, which has been marked by efforts to boost oil and gas production while rolling back government efforts intended to safeguard the environment. The incoming Biden team will try to undo or block many of the current administration’s initiatives. There also will be an emphasis on looking out for the low-income, working class and minority communities hit hardest by fossil fuel pollution and climate change.

In his remarks, Biden stressed the diversity of an emerging team that he described as “brilliant, qualified, tested and they are barrier-busting."

“Already there are more people of color in our Cabinet than any Cabinet ever, more women than ever," said the former vice president, who has promised to assemble a group of department leaders who reflect the diversity of America.

The nominees Biden introduced Saturday had compelling personal stories that they cited as guiding them if confirmed by the Senate.

New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland would be the first Native American to lead the Interior Department, which has wielded influence over the nation’s tribes for generations. She said her life has not been easy. She struggled with homelessness and relied on food stamps at one point.

“This moment is profound when we consider the fact that a former secretary of the Interior once proclaimed his goal, was to quote, ‘civilize or exterminate' us," Haaland said. “I'm a living testament to the failure of that horrific ideology."

Haaland was referring to Alexander H.H. Stuart, who said that in 1851.

Former two-term Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is in line to be energy secretary. She described arriving in the U.S. at age 4 and brought from Canada by a family “seeking opportunity." She said her father found work as a bank teller and retired as head of the bank.

“It's because of my family's journey and my experience in fighting for hardworking Michigan families that I have become obsessed, obsessed with gaining good-paying jobs in America in a global economy," Granholm said.

North Carolina official Michael Regan would be the first African American man to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Regan, the state environmental head since 2017, has made a name for himself by pursuing cleanups of industrial toxins and helping the low- income and minority communities significantly affected by pollution. Regan said he grew up in North Carolina hunting and fishing with his father and grandfather and that he has great respect for the outdoors and the country's natural resources, but he also had a respiratory condition that required him to use an inhaler.

“Since the start of my career, my goals have been the same," Regan said. “To safeguard our natural resources, to improve the quality of our air and water, to protect our families and our communities, and to help them see the opportunities of a cleaner, healthier world."

Biden’s nominee to oversee the Council on Environmental Quality is Brenda Mallory. The office oversees environmental reviews for virtually all major infrastructure projects and advises the president on major environmental issues. If confirmed, she would be the first African American to hold the position since it was created more than half a century ago.

Two other members of the team introduced Saturday do not need Senate confirmation. They are Gina McCarthy, to serve as national climate adviser, and Ali Zaidi, to serve as her deputy. McCarthy was EPA administrator from 2013 to 2017 during President Barack Obama’s second term.

____

Associated Press staff writers Ellen Knickmeyer, Jill Colvin and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Tags: Associated Press, business, New Mexico, environment, poverty, Michigan, pollution, North Carolina

POLITICS California, hard-pressed cities lose in COVID stimulus deal as aid is left out

Alexei Koseff Dec. 21, 2020 Updated: Dec. 21, 2020 9:10 p.m.

Republicans at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., blocked aid to states in the stimulus package, dashing hopes that California would be able to narrow its budget gap.

Photo: Andrew Harnik / Associated Press

SACRAMENTO — A $900 billion coronavirus aid package that Congress passed Monday includes no dedicated money for state or local governments, undercutting hopes that California and many of its cities would be able to close growing budget gaps without major cuts. The deal, which lawmakers sent to President Trump on Monday night for his expected signature, includes a new round of direct $600 stimulus payments to many adults and children, an additional $300 a week in jobless aid, rental and food assistance, money for vaccine distribution and a small business loan program. All of that could help ordinary Californians struggling through the pandemic.

Additional funding for schools may also be a key factor in reopening classrooms next year, as a battle between state leaders and teachers unions over when and how to resume in-person learning heats up. Under the deal approved Monday, the federal government would provide $82 billion for K-12 schools and colleges nationally. Gov. Gavin Newsom estimated at a news conference that $8.5 billion of that would go to California. He said the state also expects to receive $1 billion for child care assistance.

But despite months of maneuvering by Democrats on Capitol Hill and pleas by state and local officials, Republicans blocked aid that they argued would amount to a bailout for poorly run governments.

“A budget should be a statement of our values. Clearly, we have a different set of values,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said at a news conference Sunday. She said Democrats would try again to secure state and local aid once President-elect Joe Biden takes office Jan. 20.

Congress’ decision to leave out a fresh infusion of direct aid leaves California with difficult choices as it faces down what analysts project will be a multibillion-dollar operating deficit over the next few years.

Newsom must put together a proposal for a balanced budget by Jan. 10. A spokesperson for his Department of Finance, H.D. Palmer, said the governor is working directly with Pelosi to resume the push for federal help for state and local governments after Biden is inaugurated.

“Those fiscal pressures are still going to be there next month, when a new Congress and a new administration take office,” Palmer said.

Assembly member Phil Ting, the San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Assembly budget committee, said it was unbelievable that the federal government was not doing everything possible to prevent states and cities from sinking deeper into economic crises.

“State and local governments are the ones primarily providing services to people. During a pandemic, people are relying on their government more than ever before,” Ting said. “The federal government’s responsibility is to be a social safety net during a crisis. That’s why they can borrow money.”

The picture for California is not as a grim as it appeared even a few months ago, however, when legislators and Newsom had to close a $54.3 billion budget deficit.

Because wealthy households that provide a large amount of state revenue through personal income taxes have enjoyed a stronger economic recovery than officials anticipated, tax collections are coming in well ahead of budget projections. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated last month that California would have a $26 billion windfall by the next fiscal year, a one-time cushion that would soften the losses of the pandemic.

But the financial losses are still expected to mount in the years ahead. By 2024-25, California will face a budget gap of about $17.5 billion, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reported, which may require either spending cuts or new taxes. California and its cities did receive a sliver of good news in the stimulus deal: Palmer said it includes a provision giving state and local governments an extra year, until Dec. 31, 2021, before they lose any unspent money from the first federal coronavirus relief package in March.

The state received $9.5 billion in direct aid and another $5.8 billion for local agencies in March. As of the end of September, about $800 million of the state money and $3.8 billion of the local money had not been allocated or spent, according to the Department of Finance.

Yet without new federal aid, California has fewer options for using its $26 billion windfall, much of which must be socked away to replenish state reserve accounts, Ting said.

Lawmakers had hoped to reverse about $11 billion in deferred school funding and cuts to universities, courts, affordable-housing grants and state worker pay that were required to balance this year’s budget, while also developing their own state economic stimulus programs. Ideas included covering rent that tenants couldn’t pay because of the pandemic, providing tax breaks to small businesses, funding climate- friendly infrastructure projects and getting more homeless people housed.

“It does force us to decide between plugging the hole from last year and making additional investments this year,” Ting said.

Newsom said the federal aid package includes $2 billion for California to provide emergency rental assistance, which could help the state deal with one of its most urgent problems: whether and how to extend a moratorium on evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent, which is set to expire at the end of January.

Lawmakers want to extend the moratorium to avert a wave of evictions, but property owners have become increasingly vocal about their desire for financial assistance to cover lost rent and help them pay their bills. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has estimated that nearly 240,000 Californians will owe almost $1.7 billion in rent by the end of 2020.

Another major concern of lawmakers is that widespread layoffs could hit the public sector, exacerbating California’s high unemployment rate. Cities, which are heavily reliant on sales and tourism taxes that have dried up during the pandemic, are even more vulnerable than the state.

San Francisco faces a new deficit of $653.2 million over the next two fiscal years, leading Mayor London Breed to direct departments last week to slash costs.

Alexei Koseff is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @akoseff

Opinion: Climate change is a winning issue. Let’s work together to solve it President-elect Joe Biden should push Congress to pass its carbon fee legislation

Patrick Semansky/Associated Press

President-elect Joe Biden offered his thoughts on climate change during a September campaign speech in Wilmington, Del.

By SUDS JAIN and MARK REYNOLDS |

PUBLISHED: December 22, 2020 at 6:10 a.m. | UPDATED: December 22, 2020 at 6:15 a.m.

In the home stretch of the 2020 campaign, presidential candidate Joe Biden leaned hard into the issue of climate change, giving a televised climate speech and running climate-focused ads in swing states. His campaign bet that this issue, once considered politically risky, would now be a winner. Public demand for climate action is swelling. According to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, a majority of Americans are either “alarmed” or “concerned” about climate change. The Environmental Voter Project targeted 1.8 million environmentally focused non-voters and claims to have made a substantial difference in some key races.

We encourage President-elect Biden to embrace a price on carbon pollution that is supported by more than 3,500 economists including 28 Nobel Laureate economists. Janet Yellen, Biden’s pick for Treasury Secretary, has even said “A carbon tax … the ‘first best’ policy to address carbon emissions.”

In a speech this fall, Biden said, “Hurricanes don’t swerve to avoid red states or blue states. Wildfires don’t skip towns that voted a certain way. The impacts of climate change don’t pick and choose. It’s not a partisan phenomenon, and our response should be the same.”

Some Republicans in the Senate express similar opinions. In October 2020, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, participated in a climate policy webinar with her climate-hawk colleague, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. She noted that bipartisanship gives a policy longevity, saying, “Let’s work in a way that is going to get the support that you need from both Republicans and Democrats.” Pricing carbon has appeal on both sides of the aisle as well as support from some major oil companies such as Shell and BP.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists affirm that fossil fuel emissions are warming the planet. Climate change is already hurting Americans. This year more than 5 million acres burned across Western states, displacing thousands of people and preventing outdoor exercise. Category 5 hurricane Iota was the 30th named storm in the 2020 hurricane season, breaking all-time records.

California already has had a price on carbon pollution since 2013 under our cap-and-trade system. Under cap and trade, large polluters have to purchase the right to emit greenhouse gasses. The money collected is spent on programs to reduce emissions, including the controversial High Speed Rail project. We prefer imposing a fee nationwide at the point where fossil fuels first enter the economy through mining or importation and then rebating all of the money collected to taxpayers in equal dividend checks. In doing so, the government doesn’t pick winning or losing companies or technologies, and low income consumers come out ahead. American manufacturers are protected by a rebate of the pollution fee upon export.

Like cigarette taxes, a price on fossil fuel pollution will accelerate a transition toward healthier options, slashing our harmful emissions across many areas of our economy at once.

Carbon-fee legislation exists in Congress now. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 763) has support from people and organizations across the political spectrum. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, is among 85 members of Congress who have co-sponsored this bill. The San Jose City Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group support it in principle. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Carmel Valley, have introduced similar legislation.

With the incoming president clearly committed to addressing climate change, and millions of Americans eager for solutions, Congress needs to pass this effective market-based solution.

Suds Jain represents District 5 on the Santa Clara City Council. Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Up, up and away: Bay Area suburban home prices soar while pandemic deepens Low interest rates fuel sales

Bay Area home prices climbed in October 2020, topping $1 million in many counties despite economic woes caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. (File photo courtesy of Pacific Union Real Estate)

By LOUIS HANSEN | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: December 21, 2020 at 6:00 a.m. | UPDATED: December 21, 2020 at 2:15 p.m.

Defying a tumbling economy, worsening health crisis and early doomsayers, Bay Area single family home prices jumped to record levels this fall as most counties saw median prices top $1 million. Buyers snapped up the scant inventory of single-family homes, taking advantage of historically low interest rates and bidding up prices. That raised the region’s year over year median sale price nearly 15 percent in October, to $982,000, according to DQNews and CoreLogic. The figure includes eight of nine Bay Area counties; October sales data from Alameda County was not available.

“It keeps on going,” said CoreLogic deputy chief economist Selma Hepp. With the exception of condos, she added, “sales continue to be strong.”

The number of single-family home sales in the Bay Area rose more than 20 percent from the previous October.

Hepp credits low interest rates, the early stages of a boom in first-time millennial buyers, and extended remote-work rules for boosting demand. She noted sales have also exploded in resort communities like Lake Tahoe and Big Bear in Southern California.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic pushing unemployment to double-digit levels, remote work has left incomes of tech professionals largely untouched. Many workers are finding more savings without additional travel, leisure and commuting expenses, real estate insiders say.

Interest rates dipping below 3 percent for a standard 30-year mortgage have emboldened buyers to take on more debt and bid higher for desirable homes. The demand for more space, including home offices, zoom rooms and backyards, has pushed prices higher in the suburbs. Contra Costa County shot up 17 percent to $750,000, Santa Clara County jumped 16.5 percent to $1.34 million, and San Mateo County rose 12 percent to $1.57 million, according to CoreLogic and DQNews.

But San Francisco, until the pandemic the vanguard of high prices and hot demand, continued to see lower prices and sales growth than the rest of the region. Single-family home prices ticked up 1 percent to $1.57 million, while condo prices dipped 2 percent to $1.2 million. Condo sales in the city sank by one-quarter from last October, according to CoreLogic data.

Alameda County did not provide data to CoreLogic for October, but survey material from the California Association of Realtors indicated a similar market in that county, traditionally a lower-cost alternative to core Silicon Valley communities. The median sale price for a home in Alameda topped $1 million, up 10 percent from the previous year, according to the CAR sales survey.

Sandy Jamison of Tuscana Properties, president of the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, said house hunters have pushed through lingering fears of shopping and touring properties during the health crisis.

“Buyers are out,” Jamison said. “Basically, they’ll scoop up anything that’s left.”

Condo sales have been slower in the county, she said. Shared spaces and shuttered common amenities have made the properties less appealing and caused a glut in the market. “The condo buyers can shop around,” she said.

Single-family homes, especially move-in ready spaces, remain popular with young families and first-time buyers. Jamison listed a 4-bedroom ranch home for $998,000 in a San Jose neighborhood with strong schools. The home drew three offers and sold in two weeks for $1.14 million, she said.

The Santa Clara County market is not quite as hot as the peak in 2018, but remains strong, she said. “During the height, it would have sold the first week. Now, it sells the second week,” she said.

Buyers have been looking to dramatically increase their space, driving strong sales in suburban communities like Pleasanton, Walnut Creek and San Ramon. Thriving Silicon Valley tech businesses and a climbing stock market are boosting the fortunes of many professionals.

Buyers are “probably feeling the most financially stable if they’re working at one of the big tech companies,” said Fremont agent Sunil Sethi.

Competition for properties between $2 million and $2.5 million has been intense, he said. Buyers in this price range are typically two-income tech professionals looking to trade up for a bigger home. “They want more land,” Sethi said.

The only brake on home sales has been a lack of properties for sale, he added. If there were more for sale signs up, Sethi said, “I could have sold two times as many homes.”

Completing state vaccine priority list would ease minds Sooner or later, the state of California and Bay Area counties will provide a more detailed priority list for who should get COVID-19 vaccinations. Sooner would be better. No priority list will be flawless, and there are no guarantees that the government will be able to deliver the number of vaccines as promised. But businesses and residents would benefit from knowing where they stand and being able to plan for the future. Continued uncertainty only leads to greater anxiety. Earlier this month, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said that health care workers and nursing home residents would be first in line for the vaccines in what is being called Phase 1A. California has an estimated 2.4 million health care workers and 400,000 nursing home residents. The panel recommended Sunday that Phase 1B would include people 75 and older and front-line essential workers. It defined those workers as "first responders (e.g., firefighters and police officers), corrections officers, food and agricultural workers, U.S. Postal Service workers, manufacturing workers, grocery store workers, public transit workers, and those who work in the education sector (teachers and support staff members) as well as child care workers." The panel also announced that the third phase of COVID-19 shots (Phase 1C) would be given to people aged 65-74 years, people aged 16-64 with high-risk medical conditions, and the essential workers not recommended in the second phase of vaccinations. But no guidelines have been provided for the millions of Californians who are not included in those three phases. States are permitted to set their own priorities. The California Health and Human Services Agency and the California Department of Public Health's advisory committee has said that the state will largely follow the federal government's recommendations. The state panel is expected to announce before the end of the year who will be on the state's list of essential workers. The lobbying, as expected, has been intense from various special interest groups, including law enforcement officers, teachers and food and agricultural workers. One of the hottest political debates is likely to be over whether the more than 200,000 inmates in California's prisons and jails should be given priority over law-abiding residents. The Associated Press reports that 1 in every 5 state and federal prisoners in the United States has tested positive for the coronavirus, a rate more than four times as high as the general population. Public health officials make a solid argument that inmates should be vaccinated to prevent further spread of COVID-19 to inmates, their families, prison guards and surrounding communities. The people making the decisions on vaccination priorities have an unenviable task. It's been challenging enough for health care facilities to prioritize which of their workers should receive the first vaccinations. The federal, state and county health officials making these tough calls should communicate them as soon as possible so that residents and businesses can go about planning how best to get through the pandemic.

Alameda County nurse Alexandria Griffin gives Emily Scott, with the Fremont Fire Department, a COVID-19 vaccination on Friday. DOUG DURAN — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Who will California vaccinate next? Bay Area teachers, grocery store workers could be next in line

Catherine Ho Dec. 22, 2020 Updated: Dec. 22, 2020 5:40 p.m.5

Donning a mask and face shield Roman Romo, center, waits in line with other staff members to receive a coronavirus vaccine at Seton Medical Center on Monday, December 21, 2020, in Daly City, Calif.Photo: Yalonda M. James / The Chronicle

California teachers, firefighters, grocery store and restaurant employees could be next in line to receive coronavirus vaccines under a plan state vaccine advisers are slated to consider Wednesday. Now that vaccinations are well under way for the 2.4 million Californians in the first group of high- priority recipients — health care workers and long-term care facility residents in what the state is calling “Phase 1a” — officials are getting close to deciding who should be next in line in “Phase 1b.”

The next wave of vaccinations will most likely target essential workers, potentially including 1.4 million people who work in education and child care, 3.4 million who work in food and agriculture jobs, and 1.1 million who work in non-health care roles in emergency services.

The state Community Vaccine Advisory Committee is scheduled to consider the matter during a public meeting Wednesday. The state expects to issue guidelines on who will be in this next group “within the next week or so,” California Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly said Tuesday.

During the committee’s last public meeting on Dec. 16, it considered including in this next group child care workers, K-12 and university personnel, firefighters and police officers, and workers in food manufacturing, restaurants and pharmacies. Statewide, nearly 12 million workers, or two-thirds of the workforce, are defined as essential, said Dr. Oliver Brooks, chief medical officer of the Los Angeles health care provider Watts Healthcare Corp. and co-chair of a separate state committee in charge of drafting prioritization guidelines.

The two committees work together and advise the state on vaccine policies. They are considering several criteria for how to prioritize workers within that large second group of essential workers. Those criteria include occupational exposure, societal and economic impact of the job and equity.

A federal advisory committee for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the weekend recommended that the next group include frontline essential workers — including teachers, police officers, firefighters and grocery store workers — and people 75 and older.

States have leeway to come up with their own recommendations, but most take cues from the federal committee and will likely adopt similar recommendations, though perhaps with some variations.

California received its first vaccine shipments last week, and has inoculated at least 70,258 people so far with the first dose of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, which was the first to receive U.S. regulatory authorization. A second vaccine, made by Moderna, began arriving at hospitals and local health departments Monday.

Agriculture Industry Bets on Carbon as a New Cash Crop Big companies and startups jockey to pay farmers for capturing greenhouse gases in fields; environmental groups question impact Jacob Bunge

Dec. 23, 2020 5:30 am ET

U.S. farmers make their living raising crops from the soil each year. Now, some are getting paid for putting something back into their fields: carbon.

Big agriculture companies including Bayer AG BAYRY -1.84% , Nutrien Ltd. NTR -0.19% and Cargill Inc. are jockeying with startups to encourage crop producers to adopt climate-friendly practices and develop farming-driven carbon markets. Those efforts would let retailers, food makers and other companies offset their greenhouse gas emissions by paying farmers for their fields’ capacity to withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and trap it in the soil. The concept envisions the U.S. Midwest’s swatches of cropland doing double duty as a vast carbon sink. Plants’ process of photosynthesis withdraws carbon dioxide from the air, combines it with water and sunlight to produce energy, and ultimately embeds carbon in dirt through roots, while releasing oxygen back into the atmosphere. Soil, if left undisturbed, can retain the converted carbon for years.

Agricultural companies, long criticized as environmental villains, say that paying farmers to maximize those natural processes can put the scale of modern farming behind a potential climate solution. Farmers, following half a decade of lean crop prices, are contemplating a possible new source of income that is less dependent on weather and agricultural commodity markets. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the agriculture sector accounts for 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

SIGN UP President-elect Joe Biden’s administration also plans to pursue the concept. Mr. Biden said this month that under his administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will direct federal conservation payments to farmers who use their fields to capture more carbon. There is no U.S. federal requirement for companies to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, whether by buying credits from farmers or other means. But some companies say they are voluntarily looking for ways to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint, to attract environmentally conscious consumers and investors, and pursue their own corporate missions.

In September, while other Iowa farmers were tilling their fields after harvest to help combat weeds, Kelly Garrett headed out to plant again. The wheat and rye he sowed on his farm near Denison, Iowa, won’t be harvested and sold. Keeping his fields covered with growth over the winter months, he said, keeps his soil enriched and boosts the quantity of carbon dioxide his fields can pull from the atmosphere. In the spring, he plants his typical crops into the residue.

Kelly Garrett, second from left, works the farm with his sons, Connor, to his right, Colin, to his left, and Max Grady. It is also padding his bottom line. In early November, Mr. Garrett posed in one of his corn fields with an oversize check for $75,000, proceeds from selling 5,000 carbon credits that his farm generated through a program being developed by the agricultural startups Nori LLC and Locus Agricultural Solutions.

“There’s a lot of money to be made here for farmers,” said Mr. Garrett, who adopted carbon- trapping practices on his farm several years ago to help enrich his soil.

Carbon FootprintsPercentage of U.S. greenhouse gas emissionsby economic sectorSource: Environmental Protection AgencyNote: Data as of 2018. Percentages might not add upto 100% because of rounding.

TransportationElectricityIndustryCommercial,residentialAgriculture0%102030 The buyer of Mr. Garrett’s carbon bounty was Shopify Inc. The e-commerce platform used the carbon reductions generated by Mr. Garrett’s farm to help offset carbon emissions from the boats, planes and trucks transporting goods sold through Shopify’s platform during the Black Friday/Cyber Monday weekend of Nov. 27 to Nov. 30. Shopify’s Shop Pay payment system automatically offsets emissions associated with purchases. Stacy Kauk, director of Shopify’s Sustainability Fund, said that and other efforts have helped draw more than 60 million users to the system. “Customers are voting with their wallets and supporting companies that align with their values,” she said.

Some agricultural companies, including Bayer and Nutrien as well as startups like Nori and Indigo Ag, aspire to be carbon middlemen, offering products and services to develop platforms where farmer-generated credits can be bought and sold. Others, including Cargill, Corteva Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. are facilitating and funding farmers’ efforts as a way to burnish the companies’ own climate commitments and those of their customers, such as grain buyers.

Kelly Garrett sold 5,000 carbon credits that his farm generated through a program being developed by startups Nori and Locus Agricultural Solutions. Farmers that participate in the carbon credit programs so far have generally received between $7 and $40 per acre, depending on farmers’ practices. The companies say those practices can be verified through data beamed from tractors to online farm management systems, and by monitoring fields with satellites and soil tests. A typical Iowa corn farmer this year will earn $49 to $246 per acre, and between a $28 loss and a $172 profit for soybeans, according to Iowa State University analyses. “The only way this will work is if there is real revenue on the table for farmers,” said Emma Fuller, director of sustainability science for Corteva’s data science unit Granular, which is helping manage farmers’ carbon data.

Some in the food industry are wary of investing heavily behind still-new scientific models for measuring farm-driven carbon reductions, over concerns that the calculations could later turn out to be faulty. And despite growing Farm Belt momentum, some environmental groups are leery.

Jim Walsh, senior energy policy analyst for Food and Water Watch, said that polluting companies could use carbon offset purchases as a way to avoid cleaning up their own operations. Craig Cox, senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources for the Environmental Working Group, said that permanently converting land to trees and natural grasses is a more surefire way of sequestering carbon, since farmers' climate-friendly practices could easily be undone if a field changes hands.

“If the practices disappear, are the credits refunded?” Mr. Cox said. Carbon credit registries typically require legal commitments from farmers and landowners to maintain carbon-capturing practices, and can include monitoring periods, company officials said.

Mr. Garrett, the Iowa farmer, said he generated 22,745 carbon credits by verifying through Locus and Nori his practices from the past five years, like conserving irrigation water, spreading manure as fertilizer and giving up tillage. He said he is committed to the carbon-capturing practices, because they improve his soil quality and crop yields enough to pay off even without carbon payments. He said he believes climate change is producing more volatile weather, such as the derecho storm system that leveled portions of his cornfields last summer.

The proceeds from selling carbon credits to Shopify helped Mr. Garrett offset his purchase this fall of 160 acres of farmland, he said, and another buyer is ready to buy the remainder.

“If we sell all the credits, it’ll pay for one-third of the farm,” Mr. Garrett said.

Editorial: California Needs Dedicated Wildfire Prevention Funds

San Jose Mercury News (CA)

Dec. 26—California needs a long-term, dedicated source of revenue for wildfire prevention.

It's inconceivable that the Legislature failed to take action in 2020 to address one of the state's most pressing issues. Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers must not let another year pass by without making a serious investment in wildfire prevention.

California wildfires burned nearly 4.5 million acres in 2020. The state has experienced more than 9,600 fires this year, including five of the six biggest wildfires in California history. The fires have killed 31 people and destroyed more than 10,000 homes and buildings. And scientists say that breathing in the resulting dirty air is the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes in a day.

Those weren't the only costs. California spent more than $2.5 billion fighting the wildfires this year. The total economic toll of the state's wildfires is estimated at $10 billion.

Lawmakers should have acted in 2018, when wildfires burned nearly 2 million acres, resulting in 100 fatalities and the loss of nearly 25,000 homes and buildings, including the entire town of Paradise.

But a last-minute effort in August to pass a bill that would have provided $500 million on wildfire response and prevention failed over disagreement on where the money would be generated. Senate Democrats urged that a fee on electricity bills should be extended for a decade. That drew the ire of utilities, businesses and farmers. So legislators instead argued that the money should come from the state's cap-and-trade program. But that, too, went up in flames. Cap and trade isn't likely to provide a long-term answer. How do we know? The Legislature passed legislation in 2018 that in theory would provide $200 million a year from the state's cap-and-trade funds for wildfire prevention, but the Los Angeles Times reported that the money never materialized in 2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic dried up industry activity that generated the funds.

Nor can the state rely on Congress to provide the solution. Republicans and Democrats in Washington are still arguing over the best approach to preventing wildfires and the extent to which climate change is driving the increased risk. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., put forth separate bills this year aimed at wildfire prevention, but odds of Congress passing a wildfire prevention bill may largely depend on the outcome of Georgia's Senate races and the degree to which President-elect Joe Biden is willing to prioritize the issue.

Without predictable money for prevention, the damage will only get worse. Climate change is lengthening the fire season throughout the West. This year's lack of rainfall and the potential for a depleted snowpack will likely make the summer's challenge even greater. The governor said last January that "combating California's wildfires will continue to be a top priority for my administration."

Creating a stable, long-term source of revenue dedicated to wildfire prevention is essential for fulfilling that goal.

___

(c)2020 the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.)

Visit the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.) at www.mercurynews.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Skelton: Padilla appointment marks new chapter in California politics It’s about time we had a Latino senator

Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press file

Alex Padilla is bright, focused and energetic. He goes about his business, like running a clean election process with an enormous voter turnout.

By GEORGE SKELTON, COLUMNIST | Los Angeles Times

PUBLISHED: December 27, 2020 at 5:22 a.m. | UPDATED: December 27, 2020 at 5:23 a.m.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is an excellent choice for U.S. senator. He’s actually the only choice Gov. Gavin Newsom could have made — intellectually and politically.

It was a historic appointment for a governor who takes pride in recording “firsts.” Padilla, 47, will be the first Latino senator from California. And that should be embarrassing for a state with such deep Mexican roots — where the largest ethnic group is now Latino, representing 40% of the population.

It’s about time we had a Latino senator. And it’s something Newsom couldn’t ignore.

Moreover, Padilla is a loyal political pal of Newsom’s.

The governor and he go way back — to when Newsom was the San Francisco mayor trying to run for governor the first time in 2009. He dropped out when Jerry Brown entered the race and ran for lieutenant governor instead. But Padilla was there from the start as Newsom’s campaign chairman, often traveling with him to hustle for votes.

Padilla supported Newsom again in 2014 when the governor ran for reelection. Newsom’s main challenger was fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa, the Los Angeles mayor when Padilla was president of the LA City Council — the first Latino to hold that post.

“We’ve known each other a long time — 20 years,” Padilla told me Tuesday, referring to Newsom. “We’ve talked to each other about our future opportunities over the years.”

Like good friends do. Padilla’s dream was to be a U.S. senator.

So if Newsom had selected someone else to fill out the unexpired term of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, what kind of message would that have sent to other politicians the governor might ask for a favor in the future? The message would be: “You scratch my back — but go find someone else to scratch yours.”

Newsom’s not that kind of guy. And all politicians know that after Padilla’s selection.

Padilla was a state senator for eight years — he authored the legislation outlawing single-use plastic bags at grocery stores — then was elected California secretary of state. Again, he was the first Latino to hold that office.

Padilla’s parents were Mexican immigrants who met in Los Angeles. His dad was a short-order cook; his mom cleaned affluent people’s houses. Padilla earned a mechanical engineering degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The engineering grad returned to the San Fernando Valley, where he caught the political bug during the 1994 campaign to pass Proposition 187. The measure’s purpose was to deny most public services to immigrants living here illegally. It was tossed out by a judge but inspired a generation of Latino politicians who championed immigrant rights.

“It’s way past time to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” Padilla told me. “For starters, ‘Dreamers’ should be brought out of the shadows and their status stabilized. … And there should be a true path to citizenship.”

“Dreamers” are the young adults who were brought across the border as children by their undocumented parents. They’ve known no other country than this one. President Donald Trump was eyeing them for deportation.

When I asked Padilla what his priorities would be as a senator, he replied: “There’ll be three — COVID, COVID, COVID. “The first thing I want to do is get my arms around the pandemic and help the working families that have been devastated from both health and economic standpoints. These families are going to need a lot more support.”

Padilla is not a spellbinding orator. In fact, he could be a cure for insomnia. But he’s bright, focused and energetic. He goes about his business, like running a clean election process with an enormous voter turnout.

On Monday, the governor sent word to Padilla that he wanted to chat via Zoom in the evening. On Tuesday, a link of the brief conversation was shared by a Padilla staffer.

Newsom asked about Padilla’s immigrant parents and they bantered a bit. Then the governor said: “What would your mom think now as I ask if you want to be the next U.S. senator from California?”

“You serious?” Padilla replied, his eyes tearing up. “I’m honored, man. I’m humbled.”

Padilla talked emotionally about his dad cooking and his mom cleaning — and was interrupted by the governor.

“You’ve got to say ‘yes.'”

“Absolutely. I will make you proud.”

“It would have been political malpractice if Newsom didn’t appoint a Latino or Latina,” says political consultant Mike Madrid, a disenchanted Republican who’s about to reregister as an independent.

“The Senate seat from California — the state with the largest Latino population — will provide a platform for an emerging America. Padilla’s voice will write history.”

He’ll first need to get elected to a full term in 2022. But he’ll have an incumbent’s edge and the governor’s strong support.

Padilla represents a new chapter in California politics. Hopefully it’ll be a page turner.

George Skelton is a Los Angeles Times columnist.

S.F. Bay Trail is growing — here’s what’s new this year

John King Dec. 22, 2020 Updated: Dec. 26, 2020 4:03 p.m.

Laura Santiago and her son Anthony Gutierrez admire the view of boats and barges on the bay at the new Crane Cove Park near Pier 70 in San Francisco.Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

The spaces are as disparate as a San Francisco park with a beach and a reed-lined boardwalk in East Palo Alto. A monumental Oakland plaza and an aged drawbridge near the Giants’ ballpark.

Yet the members of this quartet have one thing in common: They are among the newest segments of the Bay Trail, a complex work-in-progress that offers shoreline access in all nine Bay Area counties and is intended to eventually offer more than 500 miles of interconnected public pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists.

This year’s fresh links in the regional chain add just 3½ miles to the 350 or so that already existed. But in a year when outdoor attractions close to home are valued more than ever, the recent additions show the cumulative power of a regional vision conceived more than 30 years ago.

“We call them our small but mighty segments,” said Ana Ruiz, general manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. “Each one is of lasting importance.”

The importance can lie in how existing strands of the Bay Trail are connected via carefully placed links. Other extensions quickly become attractions on their own.

The segment that the Midpeninsula district added near the Dumbarton Bridge is an example of the former.

The 10-foot-wide path begins at a fenced-off stretch of University Avenue in East Palo Alto and parallels a private road before becoming a redwood boardwalk through wetlands en route to the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, where an older piece of the Bay Trail awaits.

There’s no parking where it begins and, honestly, not much reason for anyone except a birdwatcher to make it a destination. Instead, the new piece provides the missing link for 80 miles of the Bay Trail that extend east from Menlo Park across the Dumbarton Bridge and south through Santa Clara County.

Compare this link to the one in northern Alameda County, where a mile-long segment opened in May alongside the Golden Gate Fields racetrack in Albany. For recreational bicyclists, the segment allows an easy shoreline ride from Emeryville through Berkeley and Albany to Richmond’s Marina Bay with virtually no interruption. But the new piece is also a magnet, offering cliff-hugging vantage points 45 feet above the water and a restored beach with a small parking lot at Buchanan Street.

Other segments are delivered as part of larger projects.

That’s the case with the shortest 2020 addition to the trail, a separated bike path on San Francisco’s Third Street Bridge across Mission Creek. Better known as Lefty O’Doul Bridge, the muscular metal drawbridge from 1933 was given a thorough structural upgrade by San Francisco Public Works that also placed a steel deck over the perforated metal surface and turned the easternmost car lane into a separated two- way passage for bicycles.

This allows smooth riding for cyclists from the Embarcadero to the Mission Bay shoreline — and, south of that, a paved bicycle path through the Port of San Francisco’s new Crane Cove Park. There, two lawns and a sandy crescent beach serve as incongruous but inviting public nooks in a onetime industrial zone.

A bicyclist rides over the Lefty O’Doul Bridge in San Francisco on a bicycle path that is new segment of the Bay Trail.

Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

At Township Commons in Oakland, the expansive new plaza between the water and Ninth Avenue comes with a wide sidewalk and bicycle lanes that are part of the Bay Trail and will extend farther north as future blocks and parks are developed. When Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit began service from San Rafael south to Larkspur last winter, a mile of Bay Trail was included; it’s not scenic, but it adds a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists that didn’t before exist.

Each project would have happened anyway. The larger vision for the Bay Trail helped ensure that while they serve local needs, they also serve a regional goal.

“It’s always fun for us to go into GIS (mapping) and turn a dashed line into a solid one,” said Lee Huo, one of the three planners assigned to the Bay Trail by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “It’s important to keep track of how everything knits together so that we get the connected trail one day.”

That goal is spelled out in the plan approved in 1989 by the Association of Bay Area Governments — a 13-page blueprint for a future trail that “highlights the wide variety of recreational and interpretive experiences offered by the diverse bay environment” and “is accessible to the widest possible range of trail users and which is designed to respect the natural or built environments through which it passes.” At the time there were roughly 120 miles of trails in existence along the shoreline; as of this month, the Bay Trail encompasses roughly 350 miles that include offshoots into nearby recreational areas. In 2021, new segments scheduled to open include a stretch of the Martinez shoreline, Yosemite Slough in San Francisco and an upgraded path across Corte Madera Creek in Larkspur.

Each extension is the work of an individual municipality or park district, so there’s no target date for when the trail might be considered complete. The only financial boost from regional planners comes when the transportation commission provides a small grant to a potential project to help get planning off the ground.

“We’re a small entity with no regulatory power and relatively little funding,” Maureen Gaffney, the commission’s regional trails program manager, said in describing the role that she and Huo play. “We play a coordinating role among all the jurisdictions, and try to pay attention to any and all segments that could close a gap.”

Not surprisingly, the gaps often exist because of the cost and bureaucratic difficulties in closing them.

In Albany, the East Bay Regional Parks District worked on the extension north from Gilman Street for more than a decade, and costs climbed to $14 million by the time the agency received the necessary permits and completed the construction feat of carving an accessible trail for pedestrians and cyclists into a craggy bluff.

At Ravenswood, the link from University Avenue into the preserve cost $4 million to construct. But it took 15 years of effort not only to line up funding from a half dozen sources but also to get sign-off for running the boardwalk through ecologically sensitive wetlands.

“It’s one of the most regulated habitats I know, rightfully so, with multiple endangered species” Ruiz said. “Those constraints add complexity and costs.”

The often-arduous groundwork tends to be forgotten once a trail segment opens. We are drawn to the novelty of another waterfront park along the water or the easy connection to the outdoors that can be reached on two wheels or by foot.

No wonder — the overlap of developed communities and natural spaces, water and hills, and ever- changing views is integral to the Bay Area’s enduring allure. And the Bay Trail is more integral to this allure with every passing year, a corridor shared by people of all races and economic income levels.

With luck, 2021 will be less fraught than 2020. However things play out, the Bay Trail’s importance will only continue to grow.

Willie Brown: Loyalty has its perks. Just ask Alex Padilla

Willie Brown Dec. 26, 2020 Updated: Dec. 26, 2020 4 a.m.

This photo taken from video provided by the Office of the Governor shows California Gov. Gavin Newsom, right during a virtual meeting from his home in Sacramento, Calif., with California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2020. Newsom appointed Padilla as the state's next U.S. senator to fill the seat being vacated by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. (Office of the Governor via AP)

Photo: Office of the Governor

Gov. Gavin Newsom used the oldest rule in politics when picking Secretary of State Alex Padilla to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in the U.S. Senate: Reward loyalty.

Padilla has known Newsom since the mid-2000s, when Newsom was San Francisco mayor and Padilla was on his way to the state Senate.

And he has stayed with him. He was with Newsom for his short-lived run for governor in 2009, when no one was with Newsom.

He backed Newsom over former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in the 2018 governor’s race. He may have been the lone Latino elected official who did so. He even co-chaired Newsom’s campaign.

But don’t mistake Padilla for a Newsom sycophant. He has always been his own man. He’s very serious — I have never heard him crack a joke — very ambitious and very good at what he does.

As senator, Padilla instantly becomes the de facto leader of Latino elected officials across the state. And with Latinos representing 40% of the population, they deserve a place at the head of the table.

They could also be crucial to Newsom’s future, either in a 2022 re-election campaign or a recall before then. Having Padilla as an ally won’t hurt.

Newsom could have and maybe should have selected a Black woman for the Senate to replace Harris, but it would not have had the same potential political payoff.

In fact, appointing anyone but Padilla would have hurt Newsom. He would have been seen as passing over a longtime ally for the sake of enhancing his stature among women nationally, especially women of color.

Like it or not, the bottom line is that in politics, loyalty is the coin of the realm and needs to be rewarded. Otherwise, you will never get it from anyone else.

Assembly member Shirley Weber, D- San Diego, has been nominated to replace Alex Padilla as California’s secretary of state.

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

Meanwhile: On the same day he named Alex Padilla to the Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom nominated a Black woman, Assembly member Shirley Weber, to replace Padilla as secretary of state.

Weber is a professor-turned-legislator from San Diego. She is passionate about education and African American issues. Some people see her nomination as a good start by Newsom toward making up for not naming a Black woman to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in the Senate.

The governor will have another nomination to make if and when the Senate confirms state Attorney General Xavier Becerra as health and human services secretary.

Naming a Black woman would be a good idea, but I have a feeling it will go to an Asian American.

Consumers still want to get outdoors as temperatures plunge Over the summer, shoppers snapped up boats, bicycles and outdoor furniture during the pandemic By DAVID SHARP Associated Press

December 25, 2020, 4:38 AM

NOTIFIED: Jan. 11, 2021

Catch up on the developing stories making headlines.

PORTLAND, Maine -- Over the summer, people looking to get out of the house snapped up boats, bicycles and patio furniture, figuring they were safer socializing and being active outdoors than inside. Now that temperatures are dropping, they’re buying snowshoes, skis, boots and winter coats, boosting the beleaguered retail sector.

“People want to get outside in the fresh air,” said Jay Rock from Arlberg Ski and Surf Shop in Portland. “I feel like people are not too concerned about spending money."

When shoppers aren't looking for ways to stay active many are looking to stay comfortable, meaning sales of items like slippers and warm pajamas have also skyrocketed.

Hot sellers tend to fall into several categories — products promoting a healthy lifestyle, working and learning from home, and entertaining from home, said Marshal Cohen, chief retail analyst at the NPD Group.

“The cozy comfort business continues to thrive because we’ve now worn slippers every day” since the pandemic hit, he added. For outdoor gear, cross-country skiing equipment was up 202% and snowshoes were up 221% from August to October, the latest data available, and are still going strong, according to the Snowsports Industries America.

In the comfort segment, slippers are up 70% and the sleep category is ahead of last year, when nearly $8.5 billion worth of pajamas were sold, NPD Group said.

In fact, sleepwear is just about the only area of the clothing sector that’s seeing growth this year, Cohen said. An NPD survey on stay-at-home behaviors indicated about half of Americans reported wearing activewear and loungewear and pajamas all day as more people work from home.

The trend is a continuation of what began in the spring and summer.

People are canceling travel and staying home because of the pandemic, but they're also seeking to get outdoors to avoid going stir crazy. That made barbecues, outdoor furniture, outdoor heaters, trampolines, canoes and camping gear hot commodities.

All told, it's shaping up to be decent holiday season for retailers, even though millions are struggling with lost wages during the pandemic. The National Retail Federation expects holiday sales, including booming online shopping from home, will increase between 3.6% and 5.2% compared to last season.

At L.L. Bean, off-the-chart sales of bikes, kayaks and outdoor furniture, and now skis and snowshoes, are expected to help salvage what could have been an even more difficult year with steep declines in clothing and other items.

The Maine-based retailer reports that sales of snowshoes are up 358%, and sales of sleds and skis have more than doubled, said spokesperson Amanda Hannah. Cozy slippers are up 95% and sweatpants are up 180%, Hannah said.

“Americans are really searching for outdoor connections and indoor comforts more than ever in this year of unprecedented stress,” she said. Shopper Kara Douglas of Harpswell picked up some cross-country ski boots, snow pants and other outdoor gear for her family.

She said it’s important for everyone, especially her daughters ages 11 and 14, to get outside.

“They’re spending a lot of time doing school remotely. They’re spending way too much time on screens. For my kids, I just feel like we need to be really, really diligent about keeping them outside and keeping them active,” she said.

Some retailers are struggling to keep items in stock.

At Rodgers Ski & Sport in Scarborough, shoppers looking to get outside are snapping up alpine skis, and they've purchased so many cross-country skis that the supply is low, said Bryan Gallant, assistant manager. Customers want snowshoes, but they're sold out.

“People are outfitting their whole families, and not thinking twice about it," he said. “People aren’t flinching at the price of the product. If they want something, they’re going to get outside, no matter what."

DECEMBER 30, 2020 Major rail safety technology installed before deadline by Josh Funk

An N train moves through the Long Island City neighborhood Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2020, in the Queens borough of New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

The railroad industry has installed an automatic braking system on nearly 58,000 miles of track where it is required ahead of a yearend deadline, federal regulators said Tuesday.

Federal Railroad Administration chief Ronald Batory said railroads worked together over the past 12 years to develop and install the long-awaited technology known as positive train control, or PTC. The roughly $15 billion braking system is aimed at reducing human error by automatically stopping trains in certain situations, such as when they're in danger of colliding, derailing because of excessive speed, entering track under maintenance or traveling the wrong direction because of switching mistakes. "PTC is a risk reduction system that will make a safe industry even safer, and provide a solid foundation upon which additional safety improvements will be realized," Batory said.

The National Transportation Safety Board has said more than 150 train crashes since 1969 could have been prevented by positive train control, which was required in 2008 after a commuter train collided head-on with a freight train near Los Angeles, killing 25 and injuring more than 100. That agency had recommended positive train control for years before Congress mandated it after that crash. Then Congress extended the original 2015 deadline twice and gave railroads until the end of this year to complete the system.

Bob Chipkevich, who oversaw railroad crash investigations for several years at the NTSB, said positive train control is a significant safety improvement for the industry, particularly in areas where commuter trains operate and where hazardous gases are transported, but added that it could have been done years earlier and it is still not required on all tracks nationwide.

"When I was at NTSB, we were quite disappointed in how long it took to actually move forward with the requirements and development of the system," Chipkevich said. "It is a disappointment that it has taken so long."

Railroad analyst Tony Hatch said the industry had to make sure each railroad's system would work with those installed by other railroads because trains hauling people and goods often travel across several different railroads' tracks.

"It was an expensive, complicated and time consuming project," Hatch said.

The braking system uses GPS, wireless radio and computers to monitor train position and speed, and it can give engineers commands. The NTSB said the system could have prevented the December 2017 derailment of an Amtrak passenger train in Washington state that killed three passengers and injured 57 people.

Ian Jefferies, CEO of the Association of American Railroads trade group, said completing the positive train control systems is an important milestone for the industry that will "enhance safety and springboard innovation long into the future."

Census Bureau to miss year-end deadline to turn in population count DECEMBER 31, 2020 / 11:05 AM / AP

The Census Bureau will miss a year-end deadline for handing in numbers used for divvying up congressional seats, a delay that could undermine President Trump's efforts to exclude people in the country illegally from the count if the figures aren't submitted before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

The Census Bureau plans to deliver a population count of each state in early 2021, as close to the missed deadline as possible, the statistical agency said in a statement late Wednesday.

"As issues that could affect the accuracy of the data are detected, they are corrected," the statement said. "The schedule for reporting this data is not static. Projected dates are fluid."

It will be the first time that the December 31 target date is missed since the deadline was implemented more than four decades ago by Congress.

Internal documents obtained earlier this month by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform show that Census Bureau officials don't expect the apportionment numbers to be ready until days after Mr. Biden is inaugurated on January 20.

Once in office, Mr. Biden could rescind Mr. Trump's presidential memorandum directing the Census Bureau to exclude people in the country illegally from numbers used for divvying up congressional seats among the states. An influential GOP adviser had advocated excluding them from the apportionment process in order to favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.

"The delay suggests that the census bureau needs more time to ensure the accuracy of census numbers for all states," said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former congressional staffer who specializes in census issues.

By law the Commerce Department must present the president with population figures from the 2020 census by the end of the year. This data is used to determine how many seats in Congress each state gets. The president then is required to submit the numbers to Congress in early January. The Commerce Department oversees the Census Bureau, which conducts the once-a-decade head count of every U.S. resident.

There are no penalties for missing the deadline.

"For the Census Bureau, goals No. 1 , 2 and 3 are completeness, accuracy and usefulness. They like to maintain the schedule, but that can't be a priority for them," said Kenneth Prewitt, a former Census Bureau director during President Bill Clinton's administration. In addition to deciding how many House seats each state gets, the census is used for determining how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.

Mr. Trump's July order on apportionment was challenged in more than a half dozen lawsuits around the U.S., but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that any challenge was premature, allowing the plan to move forward. The Census Bureau hasn't publicly revealed how it plans to determine who is in the country illegally since the Supreme Court last year prohibited a citizenship question from being added to the census questionnaire.

After the pandemic caused hiring shortages and prompted the Census Bureau to suspend field operations in the spring, the statistical agency asked Congress for extensions. The requests included one that would push the deadline for handing in the apportionment numbers from the end of the year to next spring.

At the time, Trump said, "This is called an act of God. This is called a situation that has to be. They have to give it."

The request passed the Democratic-controlled House but went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate after Trump issued his order.

A coalition of municipalities and advocacy groups sued the Trump administration after it changed the schedule once again to shorten census field operations by a month and return to the December 31 deadline for handing in the apportionment numbers. The plaintiffs argued the count was shortened by the Commerce Department so that census data-crunching would happen while Mr. Trump was still in office, and they said it would cause minorities to be undercounted.

They also worried that the shortened field operations and data processing would jeopardize the count's accuracy and completeness. Bureau statisticians have been given only half the time originally planned to crunch the numbers, and Census Bureau director Steven Dillingham said last month that agency statisticians had found anomalies in the 2020 data that have popped up in past censuses.

The Census Bureau's watchdog agency on Wednesday said it was concerned about lapses in quality control checks meant to detect falsifications by census takers. The Office of Inspector General said the Census Bureau failed to complete 355,000 re-interviews of households to verify their information was accurate.

Even top Census Bureau officials internally questioned being able to meet the December 31 deadline, with associate director Tim Olson telling colleagues in an email that anyone who thought the census numbers could be crunched by year's end "has either a mental deficiency or a political motivation." The email was disclosed in the litigation.

Former Census Bureau director John Thompson said the quality of the data is "the overarching issue" facing the bureau.

"If these are not addressed, then it is very possible that stakeholders including the Congress may not accept the results for various purposes including apportionment," said Thompson, who oversaw 2020 census preparation as the agency's leader during the Obama administration.

He said in an email that missing the December 31 target date "means that the Census Bureau is choosing to remove known errors from the 2020 Census instead of meeting the legal deadline."

S&P 500 ends at another record high as tumultuous 2020 ends By DAMIAN J. TROISE and ALEX VEIGADecember 30, 2020

FILE - In this July 9, 2020 file photo, the Fearless Girl statue stands in front of the New York Stock Exchange in New York. Stocks are off to a mixed start, Thursday, Dec. 31, on Wall Street on the last day of 2020, a year that saw a breathtaking nosedive in markets in the spring as the coronavirus took hold followed by steady gains in the months that followed as hopes built for an eventual return to something like normal. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Wall Street closed out a tumultuous year for stocks with more record highs Thursday, a fitting coda to the market’s stunning comeback from its historic plunge in the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. The benchmark S&P 500 index finished with a gain of 16.3% for the year, or a total return of about 18.4%, including dividends. The Nasdaq composite, powered by high-flying Big Tech stocks, soared 43.6%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 7.2%, with Apple and Microsoft leading the way.

The market’s milestone-setting finish follows a mostly upward grind for stocks in recent weeks, fueled by cautious optimism that the U.S. economy and corporate profits will bounce back in 2021 now that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is under way.

“We came into the year expecting slow growth and it turned out to be the fastest bear market recovery in history,” said Sunitha Thomas, national portfolio advisor at Northern Trust Wealth Management.

The virus pandemic shocked markets early in the year. The S&P 500 fell 8.4% in February, then plunged 12.5% in March as the pandemic essentially froze the global economy. Businesses shut down in the face of the virus threat and tighter government restrictions. People shifted to working, shopping and doing pretty much everything else from home.

The dire economic situation weighed heavily on almost any company that relied on direct consumer spending or a physical presence, including airlines, restaurants, hotels and mall-based retailers.

Volatility spiked. The Dow had several day-to-day swings of about 2,000 points. And the S&P 500 rose or fell by at least 1% on twice as many days in 2020 than it did, on average, since 1950.

The VIX, which measures how much volatility investors expect from the S&P 500, climbed to a record high 82.69 in March and remained above its historical average for much of the year.

The wave of selling accelerated as the economic fallout from the pandemic widened, leaving many long-term investors looking on as their gains after a blockbuster 2019 for stocks evaporated. Five months later, the market recouped all of its losses.

“It was probably very hard to imagine getting those back in such a short period fo time,” said Shawn Cruz, senior market strategist at TD Ameritrade.

Wall Street’s recovery was due in large part to unprecedented actions from the Federal Reserve and Congress to support the economy. Investors also flocked to big technology companies such as Apple and Amazon and smaller companies like Grubhub and Etsy that were poised to take advantage of the shift to working and shopping from home.

The S&P 500 jumped 12.7% in April. From there, markets disconnected from the rest of the still-reeling economy and pushed higher in fits and starts as vaccine development progressed and analysts and economists looked ahead to the eventual end of the pandemic. Even as the stock market charged ahead as the fortunes of larger companies improved, millions remained out of work and many small businesses around the country, such as bars and restaurants, remained shuttered or limped along at a fraction of their usual capacity.

Individual investors, sometimes referred to as retail investors on Wall Street, hopped onto the market rally via commission-free online trading platforms like Robinhood. Along the way, they helped power shares in companies like Tesla to new heights. The electric car maker jumped 743.4% in 2020 for the biggest gain in the S&P 500.

“Retail investors represented a larger portion of the market than they ever have,” Cruz said. “It was retail and institutional investors all coming to the same conclusion about what was going to work and what wasn’t going to work this year at the same time.”

The market’s turnaround was faster than anyone might have expected in March, when the S&P 500′s nearly 11-year bull-market run ended. By August, the index had recovered all of its losses and climbed to new highs, rewarding investors who had stuck it out. All told, the S&P 500 set 33 record highs in 2020.

“It was another reminder that unless you have a foolproof market timing technique the adage to remember is it’s always better buy than bail,” said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA.

The end of the virus and its pummeling of the economy seems even closer now that vaccine approval and distribution is ramping up. The U.S. and U.K. have both approved Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and Britain recently approved another vaccine from AstraZeneca and Oxford University. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has approved another round of aid for businesses and people dealing with another surge in the virus and tighter restrictions on businesses.

Thomas expects pent-up demand and high savings rates to help drive an economic recovery in 2021. Many of the more beaten-down stocks will benefit from a “vaccine- shaped” recovery as the number of vaccines on the market increases and distribution widens.

“We have more visibility that by midyear we start to be able to reopen the economy,” she said.

The sharp run-up in stock prices relative to the outlook for earnings growth suggests stocks could be in for a correction, or drop of at least 10%, in 2021, Stovall said.

“There’s a good possibility that we get a deep pullback — pullbacks being 5%-10% — or maybe a shallow correction,” he said. “Enough to remind investors that share prices don’t go up forever.” Markets were mostly quiet on the final day of trading for the year. Several overseas markets were closed for holidays, and U.S. markets will be closed for New Years Day on Friday.

The S&P 500 rose 24.03 points, or 0.6%, to 3,756.07, an all-time high. The Dow rose 196.92 points, or 0.7%, to 30,606.48, a record high. The Nasdaq rose 18.28 points, or 0.1%, to 12,888.28.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 5.14 points, or 0.3%, to 1,974.86. Smaller companies notched strong gains in recent weeks after lagging in the early months of the broader market rebound. The Russell 2000 ended the year with a gain of 18.4%.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose to 0.92% from 0.91% late Wednesday.

Here are 21 new laws for Californians in 2021

Alexei Koseff Jan. 1, 2021 Updated: Jan. 1, 2021 6:39 a.m.

Jasmine Jones walks outside the gate at TGI Justice in San Francisco in August. Jones, a trans woman who was released from custody in May, was housed with male inmates during her 17-year sentence, despite her pleas to be housed with other women.Photo: Jessica Christian / The Chronicle

With their most recent legislative session shortened by the coronavirus pandemic, California lawmakers passed far fewer bills than usual — though that still leaves hundreds of new laws, big and small, that take effect Jan. 1.

Starting in 2021, more California workers get job-protected leave to care for sick family members, corporations will have to diversify their boards, and you won’t be allowed to buy a puppy at a pet store anymore. But a fiercely fought prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco products such as fruity vaping cartridges remains on hold, even though the Legislature passed it. The state is now determining whether the tobacco industry and retailers have collected enough valid signatures of registered voters to place a referendum on the November 2022 ballot, asking Californians whether to uphold the ban.

Here are 21 changes that are definitely coming to California in 2021.

Policing: Although lawmakers introduced a flood of proposals in the aftermath of nationwide protests over police brutality and racial justice last summer, they ultimately passed far fewer revisions to policing practices than activists had hoped.

The most consequential new law may be AB1506, which requires the state attorney general to investigate any incident in which an officer kills an unarmed civilian. Critics have pushed for years to take investigations of police shootings out of the hands of local prosecutors, who they argue are reluctant to pursue those cases because of their close relationships with law enforcement agencies.

AB1196 bans officers from using choke holds that apply pressure to a person’s windpipe, as well as a technique known as a carotid restraint, in which an officer applies pressure to the sides of a person’s neck to cut off blood flow and knock the person unconscious. The law was prompted by the death of George Floyd, the Minneapolis man who was killed when a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

AB846 requires departments to screen prospective officers for biases based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability and sexual orientation, and to rewrite their job descriptions to emphasize community interaction over “paramilitary aspects of the job.” And counties will be allowed to create oversight boards that can investigate their sheriff’s departments under AB1185.

Race: The racial reckoning extended beyond the realm of policing practices. AB3121 creates a task force to study the history of slavery in California and develop proposals for reparations for African Americans, descendants of enslaved people and those harmed by its aftermath. The task force, which will be appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, is expected to begin its work this summer and must report back to the Legislature by June 2022.

AB979 requires corporations headquartered in California to have at least one person from an underrepresented community on their board of directors by the end of 2021. Those directors could be people of color or identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The law is inspired by 2018 legislation requiring companies to appoint women to their boards.

For decades, Native American tribes in California that are not recognized by the federal government have struggled to regain their ancestral remains and sacred objects held by museums and universities. AB275 gives greater standing in the repatriation process to tribes that have historically been excluded.

Criminal justice: California significantly reduced probation lengths, an attempt to focus limited rehabilitative resources and cut down on the number of people returning to jail for technical violations. AB1950 caps probation terms for most misdemeanors at one year instead of three years, and for many felonies at two years instead of five years, except for violent offenses and large financial crimes. AB1775 takes aim at false 911 calls that target people because of their race, making this type of harassment a potential misdemeanor that could carry a fine or jail time.

The state will no longer require young adults to register as sex offenders for having anal or oral sex with a minor, giving judges the same discretion they have in cases of vaginal intercourse. SB145, which applies to statutory rape offenses involving a teenager ages 14 to 17 and an adult who is less than 10 years older, was intended to eliminate a relic of the historic criminalization of gay sex. But it became a political flash point among conservatives, leading to erroneous accusations that California was trying to legalize pedophilia and prompting online death threats against supporters.

SB132 allows transgender, intersex and gender nonbinary people to decide whether to be housed in a men’s or women’s prison, a safety push for inmates who are raped and assaulted at higher rates than the broader prison population.

Firefighters, some of them Valley View Prison inmates, prepare for a backburn on the North Complex Fire in Butte County in September. A new law allows people who have trained at state fire camps in prison to petition to have their criminal records expunged

Photo: Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

Wildfires: California has long relied on thousands of volunteers from its prison system to help battle wildfires, digging fire lines and thinning forests alongside full-time firefighters. Once they are released from prison, however, their criminal records often prevent them from becoming emergency medical technicians, a certification required to pursue a career in firefighting. AB2147 allows people who have trained at state fire camps in prison to petition to have their criminal records expunged.

Housing: Grand ambitions during the legislative session to boost California’s housing stock fell victim to internal politics, battles with interest groups and the coronavirus pandemic. But a few new laws made it through, including AB1851, which clears the way for more religious institutions to build affordable housing on their properties.

Labor rights: California continues its climb toward a $15 minimum wage, despite lobbying by business groups that hoped the state would hit pause during the economic downturn. Businesses with 25 or fewer employees must now pay at least $13 per hour, while those with 26 or more employees must pay at least $14 per hour.

The state is extending its unpaid family leave program to millions of additional workers, giving them up to 12 weeks off to care for a new child or sick family member in a one-year period without losing their jobs. Under SB1383, any business with five or more workers will have to offer these benefits, a far lower threshold than before.

The law also requires employers to maintain health coverage during the time off and expands eligible family members to include domestic partners, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings and parents-in-law. Workers could previously use the unpaid leave only to care for a seriously ill child, parent, spouse or themselves.

The coronavirus pandemic prompted legislators to pass AB685, mandating that businesses tell their employees in writing if they may have been exposed to the virus on the job, and SB275, requiring the state to stockpile personal protective equipment for health care workers and other essential employees. Starting in 2023, hospitals, nursing homes, dialysis clinics and other health facilities will have to maintain their own stockpiles with enough personal protective equipment to last 45 days at surge levels.

Health: With federal efforts to bring down prescription drug costs fizzling, SB852 directs California to partner with pharmaceutical companies to make or distribute generic versions of drugs, including insulin, that are cheaper than brand-name options. It’s a first step toward the state potentially manufacturing its own line of prescription drugs.

There’s a law for that?: AB2152 bans the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits by pet stores, allowing them only to provide space for adoption events hosted by shelters or animal rescue groups.

When youth sports programs eventually resume, football teams will have to limit their full-contact practices to twice per week for 30 minutes only, and have a medical professional on hand at all games, under AB1.

And if you break into a locked car to rescue a young child who is unattended and appears to be in danger, AB2717 protects you from liability, as long as you call the police first.

Pelosi likely speaker again, but might require high-wire act By ALAN FRAMDecember 31, 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks to the media, Wednesday Dec. 30, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

WASHINGTON (AP) — There’s little doubt that Nancy Pelosi will be reelected House speaker when the new Congress convenes Sunday. It could take a high-wire act for her to get there, largely thanks to the pandemic.

The only woman in history to serve as speaker, the California Democrat has a reputation as a formidable vote-counter and wily deal-cutter. Those skills have helped her fend off threats and cement her as leader of her party in the House since 2003, and seem likely to carry the day on Jan. 3, when the Constitution requires the new Congress to begin.

“Yeah, I do,” Pelosi told a reporter this week when asked if she had the votes wrapped up. In what seemed an indication of confidence, Pelosi told reporters Wednesday that Rep.- elect Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, will be sworn in, even as Democratic opponent Rita Hart’s challenge to the election results remains under review by the House. Miller- Meeks is certain to vote against Pelosi to be speaker.

Even so, the terrain Pelosi faces will allow almost no margin for error.

The full House elects the speaker, and Democrats will have the chamber’s smallest majority in 20 years in a vote in which Republicans are certain to vote unanimously against her, joined by Democratic defectors. Democrats will have a 222-211 edge, with one race still undecided and one vacancy after Rep.-elect Luke Letlow, R-La., died Tuesday after battling COVID-19.

The raging coronavirus pandemic, combined with routine illnesses and the usual risks of wintertime travel, could make attendance unpredictable for the first House roll call in months that lawmakers will have to attend in person. To avoid risks of exposure to COVID-19, the House altered its rules this year to let its members vote by proxy from their homes, but that change dies with the old Congress.

“I’m fine,” Pelosi said when asked if COVID-19 absences were a concern.

The speaker’s election, in which members traditionally vote verbally in alphabetical order, has long been the first vote taken by the new House. Because of COVID-19 concerns, lawmakers will be voting in groups in a roll call expected to last three to four hours.

“It’s extraordinarily tricky” for Pelosi, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., an 18-year congressional veteran. Still, he said, he expects her to prevail “because I don’t see what the alternative is” for Democrats.

To make sure they’re at full strength, both parties’ leaders are urging lawmakers to take health precautions and return to Washington well ahead of Sunday to avoid travel snags.

In memos this week, Congress’ chief physician, Dr. Brian Monahan, and House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving told House members that any guests, including family, will have to follow local District of Columbia requirements for COVID-19 testing.

On a day when members’ families and friends normally swarm all over the Capitol, incoming House freshmen will be allowed just one guest apiece in the chamber’s gallery to watch them take their oaths. Returning members will not be allowed any guests in the gallery.

An email from Monahan distributed to lawmakers Wednesday described testing, quarantine and mask-wearing guidelines. It said travel to Washington by members’ relatives “is highly likely to involve significant hardships and disease exposure risks that are best avoided.” Top Democrats have checked on the availability of lawmakers who’ve had serious health problems. McGovern says Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., 84, who’s been fighting pancreatic cancer, has told him he intends to attend. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., who nearly died from pneumonia after falling while running in March and has been convalescing ever since, says he’s told Pelosi he will return to the Capitol for opening day.

“I’m planning on going back because that’s my job,” said DeSaulnier, 68.

Pelosi retains the support of most Democrats, who revere her for leading their 2018 recapture of House control and their battles against President Donald Trump. She’s kept her party’s moderates and progressives largely united and raised boatloads of campaign cash.

But at 80, about the same age as her top two lieutenants, Pelosi remains a source of frustration for younger Democrats eager to climb the leadership chain. Discontent and division have grown after expected gains in last month’s elections evaporated and 12 Democrats lost House seats, prompting calls for fresh messengers in response to criticism that party leaders did a poor job of campaigning on the country’s deep economic problems.

No Democratic rival to Pelosi has emerged, greatly diminishing the odds she’ll be toppled. Perhaps unanimously, Republicans will back Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California for speaker, but he seems destined to become minority leader again.

Even so, Pelosi must minimize the number of Democrats opposing her.

Of 15 Democrats who bucked her when she was elected speaker in January 2019, three lost reelection last month. One is in a race where votes are still being counted and another became a Republican.

That leaves 10 Democrats who opposed her two years ago. Of those, Washington Rep. Kurt Schrader has said he’s now open to backing her and at least two others have said they will do so, Jason Crow of Colorado and Jim Cooper of Tennessee.

“She has led a contentious Democratic caucus well during the pandemic and the Trump presidency,” Cooper said.

It’s unknown how many of the 15 incoming Democratic freshmen might oppose Pelosi.

Some suggest the tight numbers might encourage Pelosi’s Democratic critics to force the balloting into a rare second round, when she could eventually win but perhaps be forced into promises about bills the House would consider or other concessions. People mentioning this scenario insisted on anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes conversations.

Voting for speaker has needed multiple ballots only 14 times, including in 1923, the only time that has occurred since the Civil War.

As Some Deficit Hawks Turn Dove, the New Politics of Debt Are on Display

Some Republicans who once scolded about fiscal austerity are now embracing government spending, underlining that the public supports more generous relief.

Senator Kelly Loeffler, who is locked in a tight runoff in Georgia, is among the prominent conservatives supporting President Trump’s call to increase stimulus payments.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

By Jeanna Smialek and Catie Edmondson Jan. 2, 2021 Over the past four years, President Trump and his allies in Congress have all but obliterated the Republican Party’s self-professed commitment to less spending and smaller deficits, pushing policies that have bloated the federal budget deficit to record levels.

Even before the pandemic ravaged the economy, the deficit — the gap between what the United States spends and what it receives in taxes and other revenue — had ballooned, driven by a $1.5 trillion tax cut and more generous government spending. Then Congress adopted two stimulus packages totaling more than $3 trillion, which will be financed with borrowed money. U.S. debt has grown so much that in 2020 it was projected to surpass the size of the entire annual economy for the first time since World War II.

That spending — which some see as largess, but many characterize as, in part, a needed response to a dire crisis — has upended the politics of what was once a bipartisan concern, leaving Washington’s fiscal hawks in an increasingly lonely corner in the economic debate.

“Since I arrived in Congress in 2011, federal debt has almost doubled,” Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, wrote in a recent opinion piece for USA Today, adding that the latest stimulus bill would push it over $29 trillion. “Unfortunately, few in Congress seem to care.”

The Republican embrace of deficit spending hit a wall with the party’s leadership this past week, as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, rebuffed Mr. Trump’s demand to quickly increase the size of stimulus checks to $2,000 from $600. That decision drew scorn from some in his own party, with Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri upbraiding Republicans for denying struggling workers additional relief.

“I hear a lot of talking about how we can’t afford it,” Mr. Hawley said on the Senate floor on Friday. “I do notice, however, that we seem to be able to afford all kinds of other stuff. We can afford to send lots of money to other governments. We can afford to send all kinds of tax breaks and bailouts to big corporations. But we can’t seem to find the money for relief for working people that the president and the House and the Senate all support.”

The split in the party offers a hint of the landscape that awaits President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., whose agenda will require Congress to agree to more spending. Mr. Biden is expected to push for another stimulus package once he takes office and has listed other priorities, including investments in infrastructure, health care and climate change, all of which require government money.

Come Jan. 20, Republican lawmakers are all but certain to cast themselves as the nation’s fiscal stewards and resurrect their deficit concerns to oppose policies backed by Democrats. For months, they have pointed to worries over government debt to argue against Democrats’ demands for a second trillion-dollar-plus stimulus package, ultimately aligning on a $900 billion bill.

They will be reviving those deficit concerns after a historic spending spree by a Republican president whose promises to help struggling farmers, manufacturers and workers have proved hugely popular with voters and reinforced a shift in thinking about the costs and benefits of federal deficits. Editors’ Picks

Just 47 percent of U.S. adults called the deficit “a very big problem” in a Pew Research Center survey conducted this summer, down from 55 percent in the fall of 2018, a decline that came even as the annual deficit had grown by trillions. And spending money is popular: Polls have found support for larger stimulus checks, and throughout the past year, the public has gotten behind generous government relief. “The deficit argument is often put in theoretical, high-level terms,” said Ernie Tedeschi, a policy economist at Evercore ISI. “The effects of a spending policy are tangible.”

Some Republican lawmakers, especially those said to be considering presidential runs in 2024, have in recent months positioned themselves to pick up Mr. Trump’s baton in certain areas. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Mr. Hawley both came out in favor of sending $2,000 stimulus checks to Americans, and Mr. Rubio championed a program that disbursed more than $500 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses affected by the pandemic.

There is also a theoretical basis to the political shift. Even before the pandemic, many economists had begun to rethink their long-held view that large public deficits and debt would bog down the economy by pushing up borrowing costs for businesses and sending consumer prices soaring. A decade of relatively low interest rates and steady economic growth had prompted many economists to suggest that the United States could, indeed, afford to run a budget deficit.

The cost of debt “is substantially smaller than the current consensus,” Olivier Blanchard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, said at a closely watched lecture in January 2019. “The implication of this is that in the future, we should probably revisit the fiscal rules that we are using.”

That changing calculus was driven by the fact that interest rates across developed economies have dropped, thanks to long-run trends including populations that are aging and save more, increasing the supply of money available for lending.

In fact, the Fed cut interest rates to near-zero as the pandemic took hold in March, and has made clear that it is unlikely to lift them anytime soon. The result is that it is historically cheap for the United States to borrow money.

And while running big deficits might have once stoked fears about inflation — as too many dollars chased too few goods — price gains have been too low for comfort for years. Add to that the emergency needs prompted by the pandemic, and even the Fed’s leader, who had long warned about the nation’s debt load, has said this is a reasonable time to spend money.

“As a general rule, it is important to be on a sustainable fiscal path,” the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, a Republican, said at a news conference last month. “From my way of thinking and many others’, the time to focus on that is when the economy is strong and when unemployment is low, and taxes are, you know, are pouring in.”

The political rethinking about the deficit — especially in times of economic weakness — is a stark change from earlier eras. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton highlighted his success in cutting the deficit and creating a budget surplus as a political achievement for Democrats. Concerns about excessive federal spending and the national debt also helped fuel the ascent of the Tea Party in the late 2000s, giving rise to a new breed of Republican who succeeded in ushering in austere spending caps that continued to bedevil lawmakers. But after 2014, Republicans have joined Democrats in waiving those caps, and a bipartisan, bicameral deal struck in 2019 ensures their expiration this year.

But even as some economists and politicians become more comfortable with high public debt levels, others warn that they could create vulnerabilities down the road. If interest rates increase, it could cost the government more to keep up with those payments each year — either leaving less for other types of spending or requiring Congress to pile on an ever-growing debt load to keep up. Republicans have often worried out loud about the deficit while passing policies that will have the effect of expanding it. For instance, tax cuts that cleared Congress earlier in Mr. Trump’s administration were expected to increase the deficit by $1.9 trillion in the decade through 2028, based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis.

But the party has generally invoked fiscal responsibility to block bigger spending programs.

“Republicans are happy to run up the deficit to cut taxes, but not happy to run up the deficit to spend more,” said Michael Strain, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky blasted Democrats for trying to rush “borrowed money” out the door.Credit...Al Drago for The New York Times

That position was undercut somewhat this past week, as five Republican senators and 44 Republican members of the House backed a plan to send bigger stimulus checks to constituents. That included the two Republican senators locked in tight runoff races in Georgia, who ditched their long-held deficit concerns to back Mr. Trump’s call for $2,000 payments.

In August, one of the senators, David Perdue, told “PBS NewsHour” that he was opposed to direct payments, arguing that tax incentives were a more effective means of relief. On Tuesday, he threw his support behind the checks.

“I’m delighted to support the president in this $2,000,” Mr. Perdue said on the Fox News program “America’s Newsroom.”

Other Republicans have nodded to the fiscal impact of spending more money, but called for it anyway.

“I am concerned about the debt, but working families have been hurt badly by the pandemic,” Mr. Rubio wrote on Twitter.

Mr. Tedeschi said there was a chance that the Republican embrace of more spending could outlast Mr. Trump’s tenure.

“There is an element of the Republican Party that is going to have a different lens on debt than had been the case before Trump, even after Trump is gone,” he said. And as the pandemic drags on, even people who would oppose spending in normal times may see it as justified given the conditions. Many deficit hawks supported the $2.2 trillion relief package that passed in March when the need was especially obvious.

“What is unclear right now is how this shift in Republican thinking translates into longer-term policymaking,” Mr. Tedeschi added.

Based on recent events, that shift does not seem to be gaining traction with top Republican leaders. Mr. McConnell, ignoring the concerns of those in his own party, blasted Democrats for trying to rush “borrowed money” out the door.

“Borrowing from our grandkids to do socialism for rich people is a terrible way to get help to families who actually need it,” Mr. McConnell said on Thursday.

And Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee and a self-identified fiscal hawk, condemned the push to increase the size of stimulus checks, arguing on Monday that it would do little to stimulate the economy.

That line of thinking drew a quick rebuke from the top Democrat in the Senate, who said Republicans cared about the deficit only when it was politically convenient.

“By now, Republican objections over the debt and deficit are comical. They added nearly $2 trillion to the debt for a massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthy — and that was during a steady economy,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said on Thursday.

“Just as a Democratic president is about to take office,” he added, “all of the sudden the deficit-scolds are back.”

Bright outlook for Bay Area home sales, prices in 2021? Real estate economists see pick up in post-pandemic market

Real estate economists expect a strong home market in 2021, as the economy rebounds from the Covid-19 pandemic. (File photo: AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)

By LOUIS HANSEN | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: January 4, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. | UPDATED: January 4, 2021 at 1:45 p.m.

The financial pain of the pandemic failed to slow the Bay Area housing market and real estate economists forecast an even stronger 2021 with more sales, higher prices and greater demand.

The new year could bring good news for suburban sellers, as buyers embrace remote work and look for space, space and more space in their new homes. The anticipation of near record-low interest rates and the re-opening of large sections of the economy provide the foundation for economists’ optimism. Jordan Levine, chief economist with the California Association of Realtors, expects demand for homes to remain strong. More buyers and sellers will return to the market as Covid-19 vaccines get distributed widely and more people go back to work.

Levine believes the pandemic may have created a long-term shift in the housing market: buyers less concerned about daily commutes and more focused on bigger homes. “The needs for the house changed fundamentally,” he said.

Pandemic restrictions severely curbed Bay Area home showings and sales in March and April. But the market rebounded quickly in the summer after restrictions were lifted, driven by low interest rates, a strong stock market boosting tech professionals’ income, and the demand for more home offices and outdoor family space.

Existing home prices in eight Bay Area counties hit $982,000 by October, the most recent available data, with fast-selling suburban and luxury homes fueling a 15 percent increase from the previous year, according to a CoreLogic analysis.

Zillow senior economist Jeff Tucker said demand for suburban properties should continue, driven by at least two key factors: remote work schedules and the arrival of millennial homebuyers from urban apartments and condos. The pandemic has sped up decisions by young professionals to leave cities like San Jose and San Francisco, he said.

Zillow also expects a record 20 percent jump in national home sales, largely a function of sluggish activity in spring of 2020 and a burst of demand from buyers and sellers now waiting out the pandemic.

Despite housing costs that remain among the highest in the nation, the Bay Area saw slower appreciation in prices than did most major cities in 2018 and 2019. Tucker said today’s lower interest rates — making monthly payments more affordable — appear to be a vital factor spurring Bay Area buyer demand and lifting prices.

Tucker and many economists were surprised at the resiliency of the residential real estate market during the pandemic. “We’ve just seen the housing market speed up,” he said.

Economists expect interest rates to stay near 3 percent in 2021, a slight bump from the historic lows in 2020. Interest rates on a standard fixed, 30-year mortgage are now 2.7 percent, according to FreddieMac. The low rates will allow buyers to expand their budgets next year while keeping monthly costs manageable for their incomes.

Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather expects Bay Area home prices to grow more slowly in 2021 than the predicted growth of 5 percent in the U.S. market. She said Bay Area median prices could be dragged down by sluggish condo markets in the Bay Area’s urban hubs.

The remote work trend, coupled with high Bay Area prices, means the outward migration should continue. For a long time, Silicon Valley has been able to attract new residents simply with good tech jobs, she said.

But if housing prices remain high, Fairweather said, “that’s not going to be as true moving forward.” She believes high-cost cities will need to invest and market more quality-of-life features like restaurants, theaters, and walkable commercial districts that make cities more livable.

The Bay Area, she added, still has plenty going for it. A new measure approved by California voters in November, Prop. 19, could also increase the number of Bay Area homes for sale. It allows older homeowners to sell their properties and move elsewhere in California without losing favorable Prop. 13 property tax treatment.

Levine said it could also open opportunities for developers to build more communities for older adults.

But the health crisis has also driven up prices for building supplies, increasing construction costs and lengthening the shadow over the state’s overall housing deficit.

It worries Levine, despite the overall strength of housing market. “So far,” he said, “we’ve been able to succeed despite our challenges.”

Nancy Pelosi wins narrow re-election as House speaker

Joe Garofoli Jan. 3, 2021 Updated: Jan. 4, 2021 9:03 a.m.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is sworn in on the House floor in the Capitol after winning another term, which could be her last. Pelosi narrowly defeated House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.Photo: Bill Clark / AFP / Getty Images

San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi was re-elected speaker of the House on Sunday, but will face new challenges in what could be her final term as speaker.

Pelosi, 80, will preside over the narrowest majority in two decades, with Democrats holding a 222-211 advantage over Republicans, with two seats yet to be filled, and centrists and progressives pulling her party in different directions. “She has a lot fewer votes to work with and the Democratic Party has a lot of factions,” said Matthew Green, author of “Choosing the Leader: Leadership Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives.” “It is harder to pass legislation when only a handful of Democrats could derail it.”

The narrowness of Pelosi’s victory Sunday could be a harbinger of the challenges she will face over the next two years. Pelosi defeated House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, 216 to 209. Two moderate Democrats voted for someone besides Pelosi, and three others voted “present.”

However, all the members of the progressive group of legislators known as “the squad” backed Pelosi, even after its most prominent member, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, complained that national Democrats leading the party’s congressional campaign strategy were out of tune with progressive voters.

After winning election to her fourth nonconsecutive term as speaker, Pelosi told the House, “Our most urgent priority will continue to be defeating the coronavirus. And defeat it we will. Two weeks ago, we passed an emergency relief package to crush the virus and put money in the pockets of workers and families, which is now the law.

“The pandemic has pulled back the curtain on even worsened disparities in our economy and our society. We must pursue justice: economic justice, justice in health, racial justice, environmental and climate justice,” Pelosi said.

“Beyond all of the politics in this vote, we have to remember this is still historic,” said Kelly Dittmar, director of research at Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “She remains the first — and only — woman to serve as speaker.”

But this term could also be Pelosi’s last as speaker. Two years ago, as part of a deal she cut with Democrats who threatened to oppose her for the top job, she promised not to serve as speaker beyond this term. She said in November, “I will abide by those limits.”

Here are some of the challenges Pelosi will face:

“Less margin for error”: Democrats will hold the smallest majority since Republicans held a seven-vote edge in 2001. Pelosi will face pressure from both her left — including Ocasio-Cortez and an emboldened Progressive Caucus — and from moderates who feel Democrats are teetering too far left for many Americans.

“She has less margin for error,” said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Obviously, she has long been very good at counting the votes in her caucus. Her mantra is always, first, you count the votes, then you take the votes.”

Maintaining a united caucus in this new universe will require all of Pelosi’s self-described skills as a “master legislator.”

Ocasio-Cortez was one of the last Democrats to cast a ballot for Pelosi on Sunday. Asked afterward whether she had exacted any concessions — such as a vote on a Medicare for All health care plan — in exchange for her support, Ocasio-Cortez said she and other progressives have been “in conversations and negotiations with the speaker.” Green said that while Pelosi has “always had to deal with factions in the Democratic Party, these are more assertive than they’ve been in the past.”

Trumpism lingers: President Trump will be out of office come Jan. 20, but Trumpism will outlast him.

Trump’s influence is alive in the House, where as many as 140 Republicans will join a dozen GOP senators Wednesday in challenging several states’ Electoral College votes for President-elect Joe Biden. Judges and courts have rejected nearly 60 legal challenges to the election results over the past two months.

Even if the GOP protest fails, as expected, Pelosi will have an energized GOP to contend with. McCarthy noted in his floor speech Sunday that unlike Democrats, who lost a dozen seats in the election, “no Republican incumbent was defeated.”

“It was a wake-up call. The question I ask of this majority: Were you listening?” McCarthy said.

Stay tuned in the Senate: Tuesday’s special elections in Georgia will determine whether the Senate will be controlled by Republicans or Democrats. The results will also shape Pelosi’s strategy.

If Republicans maintain control of the Senate, the result will likely be at least two more years of gridlock and White House executive orders. But if Democrats win the Senate, Reynolds said, Pelosi “will have a little less of an ability to take a messaging vote” that would be popular with the Democratic base, without having to worry about it actually becoming law.

“More will be expected of Democrats because they will have the presidency,” Reynolds said.

Pelosi has made that adjustment before. In 2007, she was elected speaker when George W. Bush was president. But Green said she “shifted into focusing on governing” in 2009, when Barack Obama took office. That led to the passage of the Affordable Care Act and other Democratic priorities.

The Trump factor: One of the few downsides for Pelosi in Trump’s leaving office is that “opposition to Trump was often a unifying force for House Democrats,” Reynolds said.

But having Biden as president will also “take some pressure off of her to play this role of being the wall between Republican policy proposals and Republican policy outcomes,” Dittmar said.

A lame duck? Few analysts expect Pelosi to lose any power, even though she has acknowledged that this could be her last term as speaker. And there is always a chance she could change her mind, analysts said.

“Her commitment to not run again is phrased in an unusual way,” Green said, “but I see no reason to suspect why she would run again.”

And that might mean that she will retire from Congress after her term ends in 2022, Green said. The last speaker to remain in the House after being speaker was Joe Cannon in 1911.

S.F.’s Embarcadero seawall is surprise beneficiary of Trump-signed spending bill

John King Jan. 3, 2021 Updated: Jan. 3, 2021 6:03 p.m.

San Francisco’s quest to rebuild its Embarcadero seawall has received a boost from the federal pandemic relief package.Photo: Scott Strazzante / The Chronicle

San Francisco’s quest to rebuild its Embarcadero seawall has received a boost from an unexpected source — the 5,593-page bundle of federal legislation that includes $900 billion for pandemic relief.

The boost doesn’t involve stimulus payments, since any construction to strengthen the aged barrier of concrete and rocks is several years away. But new guidelines that give the city a better shot at receiving sizable federal aid for the $3 billion-plus project were included in a bill that accompanied the stimulus package.

“We’ve been making the case for this for a while,” said Elaine Forbes, executive director of the Port of San Francisco. “It levels the playing field.”

The change in how federal regulators evaluate project proposals is contained in the 369-page Water Resources Development Act of 2020, which passed Congress with bipartisan support. The final version then became part of the omnibus spending bill that accompanied the more controversial stimulus package that President Trump signed into law on Dec. 27.

The water act also makes it easier for Marin, San Mateo and San Francisco counties to seek federal funding to plan for sea level rise along the coast. Another piece of the omnibus bill boosts the federal money provided annually to help restore bay wetlands from $5 million to $9 million, an increase that Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, has sought since 2010.

The biggest gain for San Francisco involves a provision that sounds arcane but is significant — how costs and benefits are measured by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The corps began working in 2019 with the Port of San Francisco on a study of flooding dangers along 7 miles of shoreline from Aquatic Park south to the Bayview neighborhood. If the corps and Congress decide that such a project has national economic benefits, Washington will pay 65% of the cost.

Until now, however, the evaluation of such a project required that the price tag of potential impacts be balanced against the full project budget. In the case of the seawall, that full budget will include upgrades that would be required no matter what to make the century-old structure strong enough to ride out a major earthquake.

The 2020 act removes this requirement, which would have put the port at a disadvantage when competing for federal funding against other projects that don’t need seismic upgrades.

The provision was supported by other West Coast cities grappling with how to prepare for sea level rise in earthquake zones. In a statement touting the passage of the act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the change a key step “to ensure that flood risk initiatives in seismic hazard zones are not penalized” when being compared to projects in other regions.

The revision is one step in what the port’s Forbes described as a “long, long process” toward rebuilding the seawall.

The study now being done by the port and the Army Corps of Engineers won’t produce full flood control proposals before this fall. The selection of a preferred plan would be followed by environmental reviews and — if all goes well — approval by Congress in 2024.

This doesn’t mean there will be no work on the Embarcadero in the meantime.

The port released a study in the fall that described in chilling detail how a major earthquake could cause portions of the filled soil behind the seawall to liquefy, fracturing pipes and transit lines as well as historic buildings. The port aims this summer to present fixes for the seawall sections that need them the most; these fixes would be funded by a $425 million bond that city voters approved in 2018.

Portions of the Bay Area’s Pacific shoreline, meanwhile, are now eligible for federal funding that before was off limits.

The water act makes future projects along the coast eligible for federal assistance — not only to respond to current flood dangers but also to “investigate measures to adapt to rising sea levels.”

Statements of this sort suggests a less antagonistic approach to the science of climate change in coming years than the tone set by Trump and many of his top officials. Bay Area officials working to prepare for rising tides that might be decades off welcome the shift.

“The big waste the last four years was that you couldn’t talk about climate change” with federal bureaucrats wary of antagonizing officials higher up the chain of command, said Larry Goldzband, executive director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. “That puts us farther behind than we would have been otherwise.”

Jill Schlesinger: Congressional Grinches May Have Hearts

Jill Schlesinger 12/20/2020

© Provided by LinkedIn

Nearly nine months after the $2.2 trillion CARES Act became law, the lame duck Congress is poised to pass an additional $900 billion relief bill before adjourning for its winter break. Like the ornery Grinch in the Christmas classic, lawmakers’ small hearts seem to have grown three sizes in just the nick of time.

The Congressional compromise bill will provide relief to individuals, small businesses and the economy as a whole. Though not as large as the previous legislation, which according to a CBO analysis likely boosted GDP by 4.7 percent in 2020 and 3.1 percent in 2021, this current round should help prevent some of the suffering and bridge the output gap between now and the time when widespread vaccination is available.

Highlights include:

• Another round of non-taxable, direct payments of $600 for individuals with income (wages, Social Security, and/or pension) earning under $75,000 ($150K MFJ). The amount will phase out for those with incomes up to $99K ($198K MFJ). • Continuation of the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses ($330 billion). • Extension of supplemental federal unemployment benefits of $300 per week (on top of state unemployment programs) for an additional 11 weeks, at least through March 14. • Extension of Emergency Pandemic Assistance for contract and gig workers for an additional 11 weeks • Aid for vaccine distribution and schools ($80 billion) • Extension of eviction moratorium and home loan forbearance for federally backed mortgages • Assistance for Transportation: Airlines $15B in assistance to encourage a return of furloughed workers to payrolls; Amtrak ($1B); Public Transit systems ($14B); State highways ($10B)

What Did NOT Make It Into the Bill: aid for states and local governments and liability protection for businesses. Previous measures had provided more than $200 billion for state, tribal, and local municipalities. This time around, a bipartisan group of senators argued for an additional $160 billion in the current legislation, but Republicans balked. Without more money, state and local governments will have to absorb the double whammy of big spending amid the loss in sales and other taxes. Analysis from the Brookings Institute found that state and local revenues, excluding fees to public hospitals and institution of higher education, “will decline $155 billion in 2020, $167 billion in 2021, and $145 billion in 2022,” or $467 billion over three years. Because most state and local governments have to balance their operating budgets each year, the lack of funds may create a second order effect of more job cuts, which could dampen the overall economic recovery.

To be clear, the new stimulus is an important development, but there could still be millions of Americans who find themselves in financial peril. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey covering November 25 through December 7, three data points underscore the dire need for federal assistance for millions of Americans:

• People experiencing food scarcity (either sometimes or often not enough to eat in the past seven days): 27.4 million or 12.7 percent • People experiencing housing insecurity (behind on rent or mortgage payments, or who don’t think household can make next month’s rent or mortgage payment on time): 12.8 million or 9.1 percent. • People who have difficulty paying for usual household expenses: 85.4 million or 35.6 percent.

These measurements have deteriorated since state and federal resources have dried up, according to new data released last week by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. “Poverty rose by 2.4 percentage points from 9.3 percent in June to 11.7 percent in November, adding 7.8 million to the ranks of the poor.”

As the humanitarian emergency escalates, the economy is also in need of federal intervention. In the last Federal Reserve meeting of the year, Chair Jay Powell cautioned that the next few months are likely to be “very challenging.” Challenging, indeed. Economic data have shown that the pace of recovery is slowing down, amid a surge in coronavirus cases and the municipal response of new restrictions to control its spread.

Job creation has trended lower since the spring, weekly claims are rising, and retail sales for November, a month that included a stellar Black Friday-Cyber Monday e-commerce weekend, declined by 1.1 percent from the previous month. Economist Joel Naroff believes that there is a “distinct possibility that both fourth and first quarter will be disappointing,” as widespread vaccinations are unlikely to come quickly enough to prevent economic weakness, and human suffering, right now and continuing over the next few months.

As we kept our distance from one another, our public spaces revealed their new uses

John King Jan. 1, 2021 Updated: Jan. 4, 2021 11:41 a.m.

7

Vendors sell goods at Akoma Outdoor Market in a converted empty space rebranded as Liberation Lot across the street from Eastmont Mall in Oakland.Photo: Alison Yin / Special to The Chronicle

Residential towers opened last year in San Francisco and Oakland. Silicon Valley sprouted yet more tech compounds wrapped in glass that glistens with an icy sheen.

But the most profound change to the Bay Area’s urban landscape in 2020 had nothing to do with buildings, no matter how tall or expansive they might be. It involves something more fundamental — our realization of the importance of public space in all its forms, as well as heightened expectations of what such spaces should provide.

The restrictions on personal movement prompted by the coronavirus showed the value of any accessible land that offers a counterpoint to the confines of daily life, from neighborhood streets to regional parks. Yet the very nature of “public” space confronted another defining issue — the need for true equity throughout our culture, so that such spaces are both accessible and welcoming to all segments of society.

“There are a lot of opportunities, but also challenges, to come out of 2020,” said Annie Burke, executive director of Together Bay Area, a consortium of public agencies and nonprofits that until last year was known as the Bay Area Open Space Council. “With COVID, the awareness of public space has really gone up ... when sports are shut down, when movie screens are dark and museums are closed, going to a park or taking a walk are among the few things you can do.”

The essential role of public space in a metropolitan region showed itself in ways that were easy to measure, such as usage.

In a July survey conducted by the East Bay Regional Parks District, more than 20% of the respondents said they visit one of the district’s 73 parks “weekly,” four times the amount recorded in 2019. The most recent monthly count of visitors in the Presidio of San Francisco took place in September: The number of pedestrians within the unusual national park was 9% above the levels of the prior September, even though national and international visitors to the scenic enclave were all but nonexistent.

But that primal urge to be among people — or at least have them within socially distant sight — manifested itself in less-obvious settings as well. Parking spaces became ad hoc dining rooms for beleaguered restaurants. On many roadways, pedestrians and bicyclists were given precedence over cars.

Public land also served other needs unique to 2020. As many as 1,800 bags of food were distributed on a weekly basis in three San Francisco parks, while 3,500 people received coronavirus tests in numerous locations including Japantown’s Peace Plaza. Part of Civic Center Plaza became an early voting center with 200 voting booths.

“We’ve used this as a time of experimentation,” said Phil Ginsburg, general manager of San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department. “Parks are not luxuries or sweet amenities — they’re essential infrastructure.”

This reality shaped lockdown orders last spring. While buildings where people could gather were shuttered, public health directives encouraged us “to engage in outdoor recreation activity,” such as walking, hiking and bicycling. Gyms and pools were closed. Sidewalks and trails remained open.

Oakland soon began closing selected multi-block segments of many streets to all non-neighborhood traffic so that strollers and bicyclists could move safely.

But even as what Oakland calls “slow streets” caught on nationally, there was resistance at home. While championing bicycles instead of cars might resonate in upscale neighborhoods like Rockridge, where residents working from home might want to stretch their legs at the end of the day, activists in largely Black neighborhoods bridled at what they saw as top-down assumptions of how people should live. Service workers in hospitals and supermarkets complained of time-consuming commute detours amid so many other demands.

“It was a knee-jerk response to the pandemic — decisions were being made almost evangelically,” by city officials who saw restrictions on cars as an absolute good, suggested June Grant. The Oakland architect has pushed for decentralized control of planning and other government initiatives. “There needs to be more attention to how local people use local places.”

Oakland hasn’t added to the 21-mile network of “slow streets” since July. It also began to emphasize “essential places,” a more focused set of closures aimed at intersections in commercial areas or near hospitals, where neighborhood residents said they felt endangered when running errands on foot.

“It’s too easy to listen to voices that reflect your own experiences,” admitted Ryan Russo, director of Oakland’s Department of Transportation. “We need to stay in conversation with the community.”

Borenstein: Congress vote for Biden could be COVID superspreader event With joint session to affirm Electoral College decision, too many members, especially Republicans, seem to be in denial

To protect his health, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, holed up on Monday morning in a reception room near the House floor waiting to vote. (Photo courtesy of Mark DeSaulnier)

By DANIEL BORENSTEIN | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: January 5, 2021 at 2:56 p.m. | UPDATED: January 5, 2021 at 3:21 p.m.

When 535 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives meet Wednesday as required by the Constitution to affirm the Electoral College vote for Joe Biden, the joint session has the potential to be a coronavirus superspreader event. It shows why folks should stop whining that our elected leaders are cutting to the front of the vaccine line. Members of Congress should be among the first. We are dependent on them to keep our country functioning. They are essential workers.

And, unfortunately, they cannot control the childish, dangerous behavior of some of their colleagues. You would think that after 55 members had contracted COVID-19 and newly elected Rep. Luke Letlow, R-La., died from the disease before he could assume office, everyone would understand the risks. But, no, too many members of Congress, especially Republicans, behave as if they are as oblivious to COVID-19 dangers. They exhibit the same denial as many of their constituents.

On Sunday, as the 117th United States Congress was sworn in, hundreds of members gathered closely in groups on the House floor in clear violation of pandemic health guidelines, according to The Hill. Some members also failed to properly wear masks fully covering their noses and mouths while standing near their colleagues. New Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a supporter of pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theories, simply refused to wear a mask. And just like elsewhere, such infantile behavior endangers those around them. Think about the risk to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is 87 years old. Think about our Bay Area congressional delegation: Seven of the 10 members are at least 68.

Think about Rep. Mark DeSaulnier. The 68-year-old Bay Area congressman, who lives with treatable chronic lymphocytic leukemia, has a weakened immune system as a result. Indeed, he nearly died last year when broken ribs he suffered in a running accident led to pneumonia that left him unconscious and on a ventilator for four weeks. Since May 26, after he was released from the hospital, DeSaulnier has spent most of his time in Concord and, like 122 other House members, has been voting by proxy. The Democratic-controlled House permits members to designate someone else to cast most votes for them; the Republican- controlled Senate does not. But DeSaulnier had to return to Washington this week to be sworn in for a new term, vote on the House rules for the new session and vote to affirm the Electoral College presidential outcome.

“The challenge being here is that you have members who don’t think the rules apply,” DeSaulnier said. “I want to do my job, but I want to do my job with advice of science and doctors.”

DeSaulnier spoke with me Monday morning by phone as he was safely holed up in a reception room near the House floor waiting to vote on the rules that would include, like last term, requirements that members adhere to social distancing protocols.

It’s amazing that our elected representatives still must be told how to behave during a pandemic. But, following the scrum on Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to send an email reminding House members to limit the number of members on the floor at one time, wear masks and socially distance.

“When staff urge you to leave the Floor, it is not a suggestion,” she wrote. “It is a direction, in the interest of keeping the Congress healthy and intact.”

Similarly, for Wednesday’s joint session, access to the floor will be limited to members who are scheduled to speak. Otherwise, they are being encouraged to remain in their offices unless called to vote. It remains to be seen whether they’ll follow the rules better than they did on Sunday. It’s not surprising that, as of mid-December, congressional Republicans had three times as many coronavirus infections as Democrats. After all, the tenor for the political polarization over COVID safety protocols began in Washington. The Republican Party leader, President Donald Trump, has dismissed the dangers of the virus, which has killed more than 355,000 people in the United States, and has resisted even wearing a mask. Of course, COVID-19 is not the only thing he’s in denial about. Which is why the joint session of Congress to affirm the Electoral College vote presents an even greater health threat. Normally, it would be a quick formality. But Trump and his sycophants in Congress still cling to the notion that the election outcome is in doubt.

It’s not. And neither is the danger of COVID-19.

Trump administration scales back wild bird protections By MATTHEW BROWNJanuary 5, 2021

FILE - In this June 26, 2010 file photo, Plaquemines Parish Coastal Zone Director P.J. Hahn rescues a heavily oiled bird from the waters of Barataria Bay, La. The Trump administration wants to end the criminal penalties under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to pressure companies into taking measures to prevent unintentional bird deaths. Critics including top Interior Department officials from Republican and Democratic administrations say the proposed change could devastate threatened and endangered species and accelerate a bird population decline across North America since the 1970s. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Trump administration on Tuesday finalized changes that weaken the government’s enforcement powers under a century-old law protecting most American wild bird species, brushing aside warnings that billions of birds could die as a result.

Federal wildlife officials have acknowledged the move could result in more deaths of birds such as those that land in oil pits or collide with power lines or other structures.

A U.S. District Court judge in August had blocked the administration’s prior attempt to change how the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is enforced.

But urged on by industry groups, the Trump administration has remained adamant that the act has been wielded inappropriately for decades, to penalize companies and other entities that kill birds accidentally.

More than 1,000 species are covered under the migratory bird law, and the move to lessen enforcement standards have drawn a sharp backlash from organizations that advocate on behalf of an estimated 46 million U.S. birdwatchers.

Conservationists said Tuesday they would push President-elect Joe Biden to reverse the Interior Department rule, which blocks officials from bringing criminal charges unless birds are specifically targeted for death or injury.

Former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe and independent scientists have said the change could cause a huge spike in bird deaths — potentially billions of birds in coming decades — at a time when species across North America already are in steep decline.

A Trump administration analysis of the rule change did not put a number on how many more birds could die. But it said some vulnerable species could decline to the point where they would require protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Industry sources and other human activities — from oil pits and wind turbines, to vehicle strikes and glass building collisions — now kill an estimated 460 million to 1.4 billion birds annually, out of an overall 7.2 billion birds in North America, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and recent studies. Researchers say cats are the biggest single source of deaths, killing more than 2 billion birds a year.

Many companies have sought to reduce bird deaths in recent decades by working in cooperation with wildlife officials, but the incentive to participate in such efforts drops absent the threat of criminal liability.

The 1918 migratory bird law came after many U.S. bird populations had been decimated by hunting and poaching — much of it for feathers for women’s hats. The highest-profile enforcement case bought under the law resulted in a $100 million settlement by energy company BP, after the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill killed approximately 100,000 birds.

Administration officials said the new rule was meant to match up with a 2017 legal opinion from within the Interior Department that effectively ended criminal enforcement under the act during most of Trump’s presidency. In the August court ruling that struck down that legal opinion, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni in New York said the law applies to all bird deaths, not just those that were intentional.

But over the decades, federal courts have been split on whether companies can be prosecuted under the migratory bird law, with appeals courts ruling in favor of industry three times and siding against companies twice.

Noah Greenwald with the Center for Biological Diversity said Trump officials were giving oil companies and other industries “a license to kill birds.”

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement that the change, which goes into effect next month, “simply reaffirms the original meaning and intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.”

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not prosecute landowners, industry and other individuals for accidentally killing a migratory bird,” Bernhardt said.

An electric industry trade group said it expected its members would continue to take steps to reduce bird deaths. More than 30 million birds are killed annually in collisions with electric lines and from electrocution by power poles, according to government estimates.

“We live and work in the communities that we serve, and have a strong track record of voluntarily working to protect wildlife and their habitats,” said Brian Reil with the Edison Electric Institute.

But companies taking voluntary steps won’t protect against cases like the BP oil spill, said Defenders of Wildlife senior counsel Jason Rylander.

“Those types of egregious situations should not be beyond the enforcement power of the Fish and Wildlife Service,” Rylander said. “There are good actors and bad actors in every industry.”

California Republicans’ choice: Respect election results or honor Trump

Joe Garofoli Jan. 6, 2021 Updated: Jan. 6, 2021 10:40 a.m.

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 12: Representative Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, listens to debate during a House Judiciary Committee hearing December 12, 2019 in Washington, DC. The articles of impeachment charge Trump with abuse of power and

Photo: Alex Edelman / Getty Images 2019

Wednesday’s congressional vote to confirm President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory is putting California Republicans in a no-win position. Either they’re with President Trump — whom California voters overwhelmingly rejected — or they’re against him. Most of the 11 Republicans in California’s congressional delegation have dodged the issue, but that won’t be an option Wednesday. So far, only two have had the courage to say publicly they’ll go against the defeated president.

But many of the rest are sure to side with Trump and defy the facts — that every state has certified its election results, and that courts have rejected nearly five dozen legal challenges to them by the Trump campaign and its allies. They’ll go against fellow conservatives, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who tell them that Biden indeed won the Electoral College by 74 votes and that there’s no basis for challenging Biden electors from six states that Trump claims he somehow won.

The reason: Most of the California Republicans fear Trump. Or more accurately, the 6 million Californians who voted for him. It is another sign that while Trump will be out of the White House come Jan. 20, Trumpism will live on — certainly in many of their districts.

“The dilemma for Republicans is that you can’t live with him and you can’t live without him,” said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles.

Wednesday’s drama will unfold over many hours, possibly into early Thursday. In the end, Trump will lose — Democrats control the House, and enough Republican senators oppose the challenge to ensure the election results will be upheld there as well.

The Republicans who vote to essentially endorse the baseless election conspiracies Trump has spread hope to avoid the wrath of his supporters, who even in California now constitute the core of the Republican Party. That wrath can bring something every officeholder dreads: a primary challenge from a fellow party member.

If they vote contrary to Trump’s wishes, they fear he will turn against them — first on Twitter, then by personally campaigning against them.

Trump, of course, encourages that fear. On Tuesday, he ripped Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, who has been one of the president’s most faithful allies but who says he won’t support the challenge to Biden’s victory.

“How can you certify an election when the numbers being certified are verifiably WRONG,” Trump tweeted. “@SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET!”

How can you certify an election when the numbers being certified are verifiably WRONG. You will see the real numbers tonight during my speech, but especially on JANUARY 6th. @SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2021

If Trump would do that to Cotton, he would do that to any Republican.

“The most important reason for a member of Congress (to oppose certification) is that they’re afraid of him, afraid of his populist base,” said Terry Moe, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “This is authoritarianism,” said Moe, author of the book “Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy.” “We’re in the midst of a crisis of democracy. The Republican Party has become an anti- democracy party.”

One California Republican who doesn’t fear Trump or his legions is Rep. Tom McClintock, who represents parts of 10 counties from Truckee to Fresno. He joined 11 fellow House Republicans in announcing he wouldn’t back Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results.

McClintock is not afraid of bucking his party, usually on the basis of his strict adherence to states’ rights. He supported legalizing cannabis in California in 2016, before Vice President-elect Kamala Harris or some Democrats in the state, let alone other Republicans.

“I abhor the use of marijuana and believe we should do everything we can through education and persuasion to discourage its use,” McClintock said then. “But our current laws have failed us, and have created a violent and criminal black market that actively and aggressively markets to young people.”

It was the rare I-abhor-the-thing-I’m-endorsing endorsement. But that’s McClintock.

He’s not a never-Trumper. He voted with the president 94% of the time in the last session of Congress. But McClintock won’t back Trump’s position Wednesday.

“If the Congress can refuse to count electoral votes — for whatever reason — then it has the inherent power to seize the decision for itself and render the Electoral College superfluous,” McClintock wrote in a recent opinion piece that appeared in the Union, a Nevada County publication.

Newsom to seek multibillion-dollar aid package for California businesses

Alexei Koseff Jan. 7, 2021 Updated: Jan. 7, 2021 12:38 p.m.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed economic aid for struggling California businesses.

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press 2018

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would seek to create a multibillion-dollar economic aid and recovery package for California businesses struggling through the coronavirus pandemic. The plan, part of a state budget proposal that Newsom will formally unveil later this week, would include more than $4 billion in grants for small businesses, corporate tax credits, funding to expand housing and green infrastructure, and fee waivers for industries that have been hit particularly hard by lockdown measures.

“California’s economy is known the world over for our innovation, inclusion and resilience. That spirit will carry us through this pandemic and beyond,” Newsom said in a statement Tuesday. “These budget proposals reflect our commitment to an equitable, broad-based recovery that ensures California remains the best place to start and grow a business — and where all Californians have an opportunity to reach their dreams.”

A quicker economic rebound than anticipated has eased California’s budget woes, bringing the state a one-time windfall that legislative analysts estimate could grow to about $26 billion by the next fiscal year. That will provide Newsom and policymakers with more resources to chart an economic recovery for the state, which has been battered by the pandemic, though analysts also project California will face an operating deficit in the coming years.

At the center of Newsom’s economic aid proposal is an additional $575 million to help small businesses adapt their operations for the coronavirus. The state set aside $500 million in November to provide businesses with grants of between $5,000 and $25,000. The second round of funding would include $25 million dedicated for small cultural institutions, such as museums and art galleries, that have been unable to operate or are otherwise financially challenged by the pandemic.

The plan would also provide $765 million for job creation and economic development efforts, including $430 million to increase a tax credit for businesses that relocate to or grow in California, $100 million to extend a hiring tax credit for small businesses and $100 million to defray sales taxes on manufacturing equipment.

Bars, restaurants, barbershops, manicurists and other industries that have been required to close down or limit their capacity during the pandemic would receive about $71 million in fee waivers under Newsom’s proposal.

The governor also proposes supporting job growth through a $353 million funding increase for worker training and apprenticeship programs; $300 million in one-time money to tackle deferred maintenance and greening projects, such as the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at state buildings; and $500 million in grants to bring down the cost of housing developments.

In the single biggest item of the package, Newsom is proposing an additional $1.5 billion to boost the state’s transition to clean cars by funding construction of more charging stations and rebates for vehicle purchases. The governor signed an executive order in September requiring that all new passenger vehicles sold in California be zero-emission by 2035.

Newsom’s plan would need approval from the Legislature, which must pass a state budget by June. The governor’s office said it would ask lawmakers to act immediately to appropriate the $575 million in small-business grants and $71 million in fee waivers. “Californians are hurting and need immediate assistance to weather the current crisis,” Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood (Los Angeles County), said in a statement. “A unified effort is critical to success and we look forward to working with the governor on the specifics of his, and legislative proposals to take early action in providing meaningful additional relief.”

On Monday, Newsom said he would also seek an immediate $300 million infusion to bolster the state’s coronavirus vaccine distribution. The governor’s announcement of his full budget plan is expected Friday.

California prioritizes those over age 50 in vaccine line The move reflects growing recognition of elders’ risk

WALNUT CREEK, CA – JANUARY 6: Resident Jean Sullivan, 96, left, receives the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine from resident physician Lauren Azuma during a clinic held at Byron Park, a Kisco Senior Living Community, in partnership with John Muir Health and local public health officials, in Walnut Creek, Calif., on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. (Anda Chu/Bay Area News Group)

By LISA M. KRIEGER | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: January 6, 2021 at 6:34 p.m. | UPDATED: January 7, 2021 at 10:03 a.m.

California is changing its COVID-19 defense strategy to offer the vaccine earlier to a broader segment of the elder population, protecting the most medically vulnerable populations.

Elaborating on guidelines outlined by Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this week, on Tuesday during California’s community vaccine advisory committee meeting, Dr. Robert Schechter unveiled criteria that elevate people in two groups: ages 50 and 64, and 65 to 74 years old. The timing of this next step has not yet been announced, and the state’s coronavirus vaccination program for first priority workers and residents is lagging so far.

“Very soon, as the supply increases over the next weeks, be expecting a formal announcement of when (the next phase)is in effect,” said Schechter, chief of the Immunizations Branch of the California Department of Public Health and co-chair of the state’s drafting guidelines workgroup.

Of the 2 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine that have been administered to health departments in California, about 490,000 doses have been administered. The state is enlisting dentists, pharmacy technicians and other health care providers to expand its delivery of shots. Another 1 million doses should be arriving in the state soon.

“There has been a slower ramp up than hoped,” the state’s acting Public Health Officer, Dr. Erica Pan told the vaccine advisory committee. “We continue to get better with every step.”

Although three different strategies have been proposed to stretch supplies using a half dose, delaying a second dose and mix-and-matching doses — there’s too little scientific evidence to change the current approach without study, according to new director of California Department of Public Health Dr. Tomás Aragón.

California counties are still vaccinating healthcare workers at highest risk – those in direct contact with COVID-19 patients or the virus’s infectious particles. And the vaccination program to inoculate residents and staff of nursing homes and assisted living facilities — also in the highest priority group — is just getting started.

Alameda County estimates that it can complete this group, called identified as phase 1a, by the end of January 2021, but the timing is dependent on vaccine supply and participation rates. San Mateo County expects phase 1a to continue through the end of February. Other counties did not offer their timelines by deadline.

As the state struggles with a nightmarish surge of new cases and deaths, the group assigned with setting guidelines has updated and refined the list of who is next in line.

People at least 75 years old are still grouped at the top of phase 1b —just below phase 1a — so they’ll get a vaccine before it’s available to the general public. This 1b group, categorized as tier 1, also includes workers in education and childcare, emergency services and food and agriculture.

What’s changed is access for people ages 50 to 74. Seniors ages 65 to 74 years old have been elevated to the next in line, phase 1b, tier 2, along with workers in transportation/logistics; industrial, residential and commercial sheltering facilities; critical manufacturing; and incarcerated and homeless people.

Next come people ages 50 to 64. This group, classified as 1c, also includes people ages 16 to 49 with an underlying medical condition or disability. Workers in defense, energy, IT, water and wastewater, chemical and hazardous materials, communications, financial services, government operations are also in this priority group.

The move reflects many emotional appeals made by residents who wrote to the state committee. Since Oct. 1st , 65% of those hospitalized and 80% of those who died of COVID-19 were 61 or older. “Hospitalization and ICU use are driven by the older population as is the death rate. Prioritizing the elderly would decrease the burden on statewide hospital systems, particularly in critical care areas, and sharply decrease the death rate. This in turn would improve normalization of business, large and small,” wrote San Carlos vascular surgeon Dr. Walter Kwass.

“I worry everyday about my husband,” who is age 65 with heart disease, said Deborah Biederwolf of Emeryville, a nurse at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center. “I’m writing you with concerns about the priority on who receives the vaccine.

On Tuesday, the state also outlined what high-risk conditions will give Californians a boost in line. They are: cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart conditions, organ transplant, obesity, pregnancy, sickle cell disease, smoking and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Have questions about where you are in line, based on age, occupation or health risk? Call the state’s hotline: 1-833-422-4255.

Bay Area Democrats recount horror of Wednesday’s riot, support call to remove President Donald Trump from office East Bay Congressman Mark DeSaulnier said he feared he and his aides “might be taken” by rioters

By EMILY DERUY | [email protected] and NICO SAVIDGE | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: January 7, 2021 at 2:51 p.m. | UPDATED: January 8, 2021 at 2:38 p.m.

U.S. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier feared he and two aides might be taken captive by the mob raging outside the door. Rep. Anna Eshoo spent five hours in a windowless room, wrestling with spotty cell service to assure her frantic family that she was safe. San Mateo Rep. Jackie Speier’s mind traveled back to 1978 and Guyana, when she was shot five times by armed devotees of cult leader Jim Jones. Her boss, Rep. Leo Ryan, was killed.

The lawmakers shared those harrowing memories less than 24 hours after they fled into barricaded rooms, under attack and fearing for their lives as violent Trump supporters stormed into the U.S. Capitol and breached the Senate Chamber and several congressional offices. But with those immediate dangers now past, members of the Bay Area’s all- Democratic House delegation also discussed Thursday the steps they believe must be taken to restore respect for American government — including taking action against President Trump.

East Bay Rep. DeSaulnier said he was among the last members of Congress to reach the safe room where many of his colleagues were taken after the House chamber was evacuated. He had been participating in a vote to certify Joe Biden as the next president from a separate room, just off the chamber, as a COVID-19 precaution because he fell seriously ill with pneumonia and spent three weeks in an intensive care unit last year.

That room would become his refuge and hiding place after a voice came over the building’s loudspeaker with a warning: “Lock your doors, shut your lights off and be quiet,” said DeSaulnier, who is still in Washington D.C. Then, he said, “We could hear the confrontations in the hallway right outside the house chamber.”

The lawmaker said he worried that he and the staffers “might be taken” by the rioters. His fears might have been well-founded. Photos from the scene showed one rioter inside the Capitol was carrying a bundle of zip ties.

The congressman said the room had afforded him what is normally a postcard view down the National Mall toward the Washington Monument. But that bucolic view turned into a horror show Wednesday afternoon.

“I could watch the television — hear president Trump, what he was saying, riling them up — then watch them come up toward us,” DeSaulnier said of the frothing crowd of Trump loyalists.

He watched as the demonstrators pushed through barricades and clashed with overmatched police near temporary bleachers set up for President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration later this month.

“You just can’t believe that all of this is happening,” DeSaulnier said. “And that it’s happening to a building that, to my way of thinking, is sacred.”

DeSaulnier said he fully supports efforts to remove President Trump from office.

“It just makes me so angry and so determined that the people who did this need to be brought to justice, including the person who incited this,” he said of Trump. “He tried to overthrow the country, he tried to overthrow the United States government. … You can’t just let this go.”

The assault on the Capitol rattled even veteran lawmakers.

“I think we’re all traumatized,” said Eshoo, a Palo Alto Democrat. “If I had a bad nightmare, it wouldn’t have captured what we experienced yesterday.”

Eshoo was en route to the House gallery from her office building when police came running toward her, shouting “go back, go back,” she recalled in an interview Thursday from D.C.

The congresswoman made her way with a couple of staffers to a windowless interior room in another office building, where she spent five hours holed up with Rep. Mike Thompson of Napa “watching in horror as the mob breached the Capitol.”

With nothing but a live stream of the chaos around her, a few bottles of water, her voting card and spotty cell service, Eshoo scrambled to reassure hysterical family members that she was alright.

Eshoo said she agrees that the president needs to be removed but doesn’t hold out a lot of hope that Vice President Mike Pence will use his constitutional powers to boot Trump. “If I could impeach him right now, I would,” said the congresswoman, adding that although she was scheduled to fly home Thursday evening she was prepared to return to Washington if necessary.

Eshoo also blasted the Capitol Hill police, calling their lackluster response a “failure across the board” and describing the barricades outside the Capitol complex “like doggy doors … it was like, ‘Welcome, I’m taking you on a tour.’ ”

Lawmakers, she said, had gotten a detailed memo about street barricades and procedures, but when she arrived and looked across the Capitol Hill plaza, “I thought, where is everyone?”

“I had a very eerie feeling. … I just kept pushing that bad feeling away,” she recalled.

Wednesday’s mob violence brought up painful memories for Speier, a San Mateo Democrat who was shot and left for dead during a 1978 fact-finding mission into the human rights abuses being carried out by Jones, a charismatic cult leader whose many devotees left everything behind in the Bay Area to follow him to Jonestown, Guyana.

“More than 40 years ago, as I lay bleeding from five gunshot wounds on an air strip in the Guyanese jungle not knowing if I would live or die, I swore that if I did survive I would dedicate my life to public service,” Speier, who was en route back to the Bay Area on Thursday and unavailable for an interview, wrote in a late Wednesday statement. “I thought of that moment today, when the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a mob of Trump rioters emboldened by the President fomenting a coup d’état.”

“The president must be immediately removed under the 25th Amendment,” Speier said. “His words and deeds have encouraged a violent insurrection and he presents a direct and deadly threat to our democracy and the rule of law.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, who also supports removing Trump from office, said she wants to help organize a review of security at the Capitol.

“We can’t allow terrorists to come in and invade the Capitol of the United States,” Lofgren said. “We’ve got to prevent that from happening again.”

Fremont Democrat Ro Khanna also supports efforts to remove Trump from office through impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment, and plans to stay in Washington through the inauguration. But he also said he hoped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans would go to the White House and directly tell Trump he must resign and let Vice President Mike Pence assume the office.

“I have faith and trust that (Pence) would preside over the government responsibly for 14 days,” Khanna said. It’s unclear how likely such a confrontation is, but it would echo a similar meeting ahead of Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974 in which GOP Congressional leadership told the president he would not have the votes to survive impeachment.

Khanna was walking to the House floor from a Congressional office building across the street, using an underground tunnel to avoid the crowds, when he learned the mob had breached the Capitol.

“You can’t go to the Capitol,” Khanna recalled someone telling him. “The Capitol is being overrun — go back.”

.S. Disaster Costs Doubled in 2020, Reflecting Costs of Climate Change

The $95 billion in damage came in a year marked by a record number of named Atlantic storms, as well as the largest wildfires recorded in California.

Damage from the Silverado Fire near Irvine, Calif., last year.Credit...Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

By Christopher Flavelle Jan. 7, 2021

WASHINGTON — Hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters across the United States caused $95 billion in damage last year, according to new data, almost double the amount in 2019 and the third- highest losses since 2010. The new figures, reported Thursday morning by Munich Re, a company that provides insurance to other insurance companies, are the latest signal of the growing cost of climate change. They reflect a year marked by a record number of named Atlantic storms, as well as the largest wildfires ever recorded in California.

Those losses occurred during a year that was one of the warmest on record, a trend that makes extreme rainfall, wildfires, droughts and other environmental catastrophes more frequent and intense. “Climate change plays a role in this upward trend of losses,” Ernst Rauch, the chief climate scientist at Munich Re, said in an interview. He said continued building in high-risk areas had also contributed to the growing losses.

Damage in the aftermath from Hurricane Laura in Iowa, La., in October.Credit...William Widmer for The New York Times

Topping the list was Hurricane Laura, which caused $13 billion in damage when it struck Southwestern Louisiana in late August. Laura was one of the year’s record number of 30 named storms in 2020; 12 of those storms made landfall, another record. The storms caused $43 billion in losses, almost half the total for all U.S. disasters last year.

In addition to the number of storms, the 2020 hurricane season was unusually devastating because climate change is making storms more likely to stall once they hit land, pumping more rain and wind into coastal towns and cities for longer periods of time, Mr. Rauch said.

The next costliest category of natural disasters was convective storms, which includes thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms and derechos, and caused $40 billion in losses last year. The derecho that struck Iowa and other Midwestern states in August caused almost $7 billion in damage, destroying huge amounts of corn and soybean crops.

Wildfires caused another $16 billion in losses. Last year’s wildfires stood out not just because of the numbers of acres burned or houses destroyed, Munich Re said, but also because so much of that damage was outside of California. Some 4,000 homes were damaged or destroyed in Oregon alone.

The new numbers come as the insurance industry struggles to adjust to the effects of climate change. In California, officials have tried a series of rule changes designed to stop insurers from pulling out of fire-prone areas, leaving homeowners with few options for insurance.

Homeowners and governments around the United States need to do a better job of making buildings and communities more resilient to natural disasters, said Donald L. Griffin, a vice president at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which represents insurance companies. “We can’t, as an industry, continue to just collect more and more money, and rebuild and rebuild and rebuild in the same way,” Mr. Griffin said in an interview. “We’ve got to place an emphasis on preventing and reducing loss.”

The data also shows another worrying trend: The lack of insurance coverage in developing countries, which makes it harder for people there to recover after a disaster.

The single costliest disaster of 2020 was a series of floods that hit China last summer, which according to Munich Re caused $17 billion worth of damage. Only 2 percent of those losses were insured, the company said.

Similarly, Cyclone Amphan, which struck India and Bangladesh in May, caused $14 billion of damage, “very little of which was insured,” according to Munich Re. Of the $67 billion in losses from natural disasters across Asia last year, only $3 billion, or 4.5 percent, was covered by insurance.

Without insurance, Mr. Rauch said, “the opportunity to recover fast after such an event is simply not there.”

Market rebounds, reaching new highs Three major indexes close week with broken records

The Mercury News

9 Jan 2021

By Stan Choe, Damian J. Troise and Alex Veiga Wall Street notched more milestones Friday as the market largely shrugged off another discouraging jobs report amid expectations that the incoming Biden administration will pump more aid into the pandemic-ravaged economy. The S&P 500 rose 0.5%, its second straight record high, after bouncing back from a midday slump that knocked it down 0.5%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite all closed at new highs. Technology stocks and companies that rely on consumer spending helped lift the market, outweighing losses in financial, industrial and other sectors. The gains pushed the S&P 500 to its second weekly gain in a row. Treasury yields continued to move higher, fueled by expectations of increased federal borrowing, more stimulus for the economy and the possibility of higher inflation. The Labor Department said Friday employers cut jobs for the first time since April as the worsening pandemic led more businesses to shut down. But Wall Street remains hopeful that Washington will come through with more badly needed support for American workers and businesses following President- elect Joe Biden’s inauguration. “There are still close to 4 million people who have been long-term unemployed, which could threaten growth in the next couple of months,” said Megan Horneman, director of portfolio strategy at Verdence Capital Advisors. “The market continues to slowly grind higher because (investors) are expecting additional stimulus when the new administration goes into effect later this month.” The S&P 500 fell 20.89 points to 3,824.68. The Dow gained 56.84 points, or 0.2%, to 31,097.97. The Nasdaq climbed 134.50 points, or 1%, to 13,201.98. President Donald Trump acknowledged late Thursday that he’ll be leaving the White House later this month. With Democrats soon in control of the presidency, Senate and House, investors are anticipating Washington will try to deliver even more stimulus for the struggling economy. That’s layering on top of expectations already built up for the economy to get healthier as coronavirus vaccines roll out in 2021. The much weaker-than- expected report on [sic]

California budget — from boom to bust and back to boom $227.2 billion fiscal blueprint includes what Gov. Gavin Newsom referred to as a $5 billion “immediate action plan”

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA-California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at the California justice department in Sept in Sacramento, California.

By JOHN WOOLFOLK | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: January 8, 2021 at 12:46 p.m. | UPDATED: January 10, 2021 at 5:27 a.m.

Six months ago Gov. Gavin Newsom was bemoaning the reversal of the Golden State’s fortunes, as his stay-home order to slow the coronavirus had constrained the economy and helped turn a projected $5.6 billion surplus into a $54.3 billion shortfall. Although the pandemic crisis is far worse today than it was then, the state’s coffers are again overflowing with a $15 billion surplus in Newsom’s proposed $227.2 billion budget announced Friday.

“My, has so much changed,” Newsom said. “We are in a much better position than anyone could have imagined eight months ago.

California Finance Director Keely Martin Bosler said the reversal in financial fortune is due to a combination of overly pessimistic projections earlier in the year, the unequal pandemic impacts on different job sectors and a stock market that “has gone up and up and up.”

But she cautioned against too much optimism. The projected surplus is followed over the next three years by anticipated annual deficits of around $10 billion. The surplus is also less than the $26 billion the Legislative Analyst’s Office had estimated in November. Bosler said the difference reflects accounting for filling reserve funds as well as recognizing the costs of last year’s wildfires and the pandemic response.

“Our future is very, very, very tenuous,” Newsom said. “So prudence, fiscal discipline, maintaining those frameworks is I think what this moment calls for.”

Nevertheless, Newsom is proposing significant new spending. His fiscal blueprint, which does not call for broad-based tax increases, includes what he referred to as a $5 billion “immediate action plan” to help ease the coronavirus crisis:

• $2.4 in a “Golden State Stimulus,” including $600 in direct payments to an estimated 4 million low- income Californians to help them with rent and child care. The plan includes extending an eviction moratorium. • $2 billion already announced to help school districts reopen classrooms through virus testing, decontamination, physical distancing and other associated costs. • $575 million in small business grants, and $71 million in fee waivers for small businesses. The budget also calls for:

• $85.8 billion for schools, which Newsom called the “highest investment per pupil the state has ever advanced.” It includes $4.6 billion to extend learning time in summer school, $250 million for teacher training and recruitment and $300 million for education programs for infants, toddlers, preschoolers. • $1.5 billion for electric vehicle infrastructure. • $1.75 billion for cities and counties to house their homeless residents, including funds to purchase motels and hotels, create new mental health housing and build homes for vulnerable seniors. • $1.1 billion for Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program for the poor. • $786 million in new money the University of California and California State University systems, with a promise of no tuition or fee increases. • $1 billion for wildfire resiliency and emergency response, including $143.3 million for more fire crews, $48 million for new helicopters and air tankers, $17.3 million for an earthquake early warning system, and $39 million for LIDAR remote fire sensing. • $372 million to expedite COVID-19 vaccinations. The budget assumes $6.7 billion in anticipated federal support from the coronavirus relief package recently approved by Congress.

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said he was “particularly appreciative of Governor Newsom’s commitment to supporting the basic needs of college students.” Last year, Newsom made international news by announcing that it will be illegal to sell new gasoline-burning cars in California starting in 2035 as a key part of the state’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

His budget Friday would devote $1 billion to grants and loans for new electric vehicle chargers, hydrogen fueling stations and other facilities, and another $465 million in incentives for electric vehicles, like the state’s Clean Cars For All program, which offers people up to $9,500 to scrap polluting vehicles more than 15 years old and buy an electric, fuel cell or plug-in hybrid car.

“It’s great that Gov. Newsom is giving 100% emissions-free vehicles the investment they deserve as a key part of the transition away from fossil fuels,” said Brian Nowicki, California Climate Policy Director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said the budget provides much-needed help for cities grappling with homelessness amid the pandemic.

“Mayors throughout the state urged Governor Newsom to remain steadfast in his commitment to housing solutions, and he stepped up,” Liccardo said in a statement. “I am grateful for the governor’s continued leadership — this bold investment will enable us to bring thousands of our residents in from the cold.”

The state’s Department of Motor Vehicles would receive $152 million in one-time funding to hire more workers for the expected crush of demand for new driver’s licenses that comply with federal REAL ID standards. Starting on Oct. 1, all adults will need to have an identification that meets those standards to get through airport security.

Newsom’s budget provides $13 million to implement a new law requiring the state Department of Justice, rather than local authorities, to conduct the investigations into deadly police shootings of unarmed civilians. The law was the most significant new policing legislation California lawmakers approved during an abbreviated session last summer, following massive police brutality and racial justice protests.

California’s state prison system, which has seen serious COVID outbreaks, would receive $283.1 million to cover the cost of expanded testing, cleaning, temporary housing and protective equipment.

Republican leaders, whose party holds too few seats in the Legislature to have much say over the final budget to be approved in June, urged the Governor to help students with mental health needs from the isolation of online “distance learning” and to fix the state’s Employment Development Department. The embattled EDD has suspended payments for more than 1 million unemployment claims in response to widening fraud woes.

“Over the past ten months, the Governor’s shutdowns and COVID-19 challenges have made it difficult for millions of Californians,” said Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) and Senator Jim Nielsen (R-Tehama), vice chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, in a joint statement before the budget announcement.

Newsom’s budget calls for investment in prescribed fire to combat catastrophic blazes

Kurtis Alexander Jan. 8, 2021 Updated: Jan. 8, 2021 8:06 p.m.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Kamala Harris review the devastation of the Creek Fire in Pineridge in September. Newsom’s new budget proposal includes about $1 billion in funds for fire prevention efforts.Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle 2020

Following a record wildfire season in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to invest an additional $1 billion to make the state’s forests and communities more resilient to future blazes.

The bulk of the money, detailed in a far-reaching budget proposal released Friday, would go toward improving the health of California’s wildlands by preemptively burning and thinning dangerous buildups of vegetation — to ensure that the landscape won’t burn as catastrophically as it has in recent years. In 2020, wildfires charred an unprecedented 4.2 million acres in California. Much of it was in overgrown forests and grasslands that hadn’t been managed with the potential for fire in mind. The result, as in previous years, was fast-moving, highly destructive infernos, including the 67,000-acre Glass Fire that destroyed 1,500 buildings in Napa and Sonoma counties. The past fire season also included four of the five largest blazes in state history.

State and federal land managers have long pledged to better prepare California’s hills and valleys for wildfire, but little has been done. In fact, California has largely continued a century-old policy of suppressing fire, which increases the accumulation of combustible brush and trees. Newsom’s budget plan seeks to at least start changing that.

“This budget does represent somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, who oversees many of the state agencies that deal with wildfire, including Cal Fire. “It’s really a quantum increase in wildfire resilience investment.”

The proposal includes $512 million for landscape-scale vegetation projects, including prescribed burning. Newsom is asking that Cal Fire and other state departments draw up a burning plan this spring. Prescribed fires help clear wildlands so they don’t burn as intensely when a natural or accidental fire erupts. However, because they put out irritating smoke and have a small chance of getting out of control, they can be tough to coordinate.

Boosting the number of prescribed burns is pivotal to meeting the state’s goal of improving fire resiliency across 500,000 acres every year, beginning this year. The U.S. Forest Service has pledged to treat a similar amount of acreage.

The budget plan also calls for $335 million to build at least 45 fuel breaks annually across the state for an undetermined number of years. The breaks, which involve removing dense stands of trees and underbrush, can slow the spread of a fire, giving firefighters time to get in place and contain the blaze. The work has long been a means of safeguarding cities and towns, but it can be expensive.

Another $113 million, which includes matching federal funds, would go to hardening homes and infrastructure with stronger materials so they have a better chance of surviving a fire.

An additional $75 million would be used to stimulate the wood product market to give timber companies incentive to thin more trees in fire-prone areas. A low-interest lending program for the companies is one possibility.

Another $39 million would go to a lidar remote sensing program and other research ventures to track forest health.

The proposed funding for forest resiliency would come from the state’s cap-and-trade program, in which businesses that emit greenhouse gases pay for their pollution, and a one-time state budget surplus. Tax revenues are bouncing back more quickly from the coronavirus pandemic than state officials had planned.

The money for forest management is more than five times what the state is spending in the current fiscal year on resiliency. The new budget year begins July 1, though Newsom is asking that some of the funding be deployed sooner. The governor’s proposed $227.2 billion budget must be approved by the state Legislature before taking effect.

Some fire experts and environmental groups expressed concern with Newsom’s resiliency plan, particularly about working with the timber industry to restore forest health. They would rather see money spent not on clearing trees, but on home hardening, and want more funds for it. However, many praised Newsom’s effort to improve wildland conditions as a good first step.

“When you compare the human and economic cost of fire suppression and recovery to the costs of proactive forest management that reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire, there’s no contest: Prevention is the smarter,” said Sam Hodder, president and CEO of the San Francisco-based Save the Redwoods League. “We just need the political will to shift our thinking. ... I applaud the governor for launching that shift today.”

The proposed budget also calls for a funding increase for firefighting. Cal Fire’s annual spending would rise to $2.9 billion under the plan, up nearly $500 million over the current fiscal year.

The new money would pay for 30 hand crews to help fight fires and build fuel breaks, bringing the agency’s total staffing to about 8,735 jobs. The boost in employees offsets the loss of inmate firefighters, a force that had been scaled back during the coronavirus pandemic.

An additional $48 million would go to Cal Fire’s air attack, including helping with the purchase of new Black Hawk helicopters and air tankers.

Newsom calls for using budget windfall to boost California reserves, fight pandemic-caused woes

Alexei Koseff Jan. 8, 2021 Updated: Jan. 8, 2021 9:53 p.m.

3

The governor has proposed advancing schools up to $750 per student to come up with plans to resume in-person instruction by February.Photo: Gregory Bull / Associated Press 2020

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a $227.2 billion budget Friday that would shore up California’s financial reserves and use a one-time windfall to chart an economic recovery out of the coronavirus pandemic. The proposal, which includes a record $164.5 billion general fund, is more than 12% larger than the state spending plan adopted last year amid widespread unemployment and a painful economic contraction.

Tax revenues have rebounded more quickly than officials anticipated in the months since, which would allow the state to put nearly $19 billion back into the reserve accounts it tapped into last year and leave a $15.6 billion discretionary surplus.

Newsom proposed Friday using that money to send direct aid to low-income Californians, increase tax credits that promote hiring, help schools reopen for in-person learning, expand early childhood education and university funding, build more affordable housing, and hire more fire crews.

“We are investing, in our energy and our focus, to deal with the disproportionate impacts of this pandemic,” Newsom said during a news conference in Sacramento.

Under his plan, much of the state’s one-time windfall would be spent on economic aid programs, including two initiatives he unveiled earlier this week and asked the Legislature to approve by the end of the month. The governor typically offers a revised proposal in May, kicking off a month of negotiations with lawmakers, who must approve a balanced budget by June 15.

A Newsom proposal to send $600 direct payments to low-income Californians who file for the state’s earned income tax credit for the working poor would double the second round of federal stimulus checks for nearly 4 million taxpayers. The governor said the program, which would cost about $2.4 billion, could help tenants who are struggling to pay the rent remain in their homes.

Newsom also urged legislators to quickly approve $575 million for a state fund offering grants to small businesses of between $5,000 and $25,000 to adapt their operations for the pandemic.

That money is part of a broader $4 billion economic recovery package Newsom proposed. It would also provide $430 million to increase a tax credit for businesses that relocate to or expand in California; $71 million in fee waivers for bars, restaurants, barbershops and other businesses that have been required to close down or limit their capacity during the pandemic; $500 million in grants to bring down the cost of housing developments; and $1.5 billion to boost the state’s transition to clean cars by funding construction of charging stations and rebates on vehicle purchases.

Democrats, who dominate the Legislature, overwhelmingly expressed support for the immediate priorities Newsom laid out as they prepare to begin budget hearings next week. Sen. Nancy Skinner, the Berkeley Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said there was no disagreement over efforts to prevent mass evictions or help small businesses, though she anticipated some debate about a plan to offer financial incentives to reopen schools.

“The governor has absolutely rightfully identified that we need to get Californians vaccinated and put resources toward getting control of the pandemic,” Skinner said. “The question is, how do we do that safely?”

To get California students back into classrooms, Newsom has proposed advancing school districts $2 billion, or up to $750 per student, if they come up with a plan to resume in-person instruction by February. The governor said Friday that the money would come on top of $85.8 billion in funding for K-12 schools and community colleges next year, reflecting the highest level of per-pupil spending in state history. More than $4 billion of that would be dedicated to summer school and other programs to make up for learning time lost during the pandemic.

But large school districts, including in the Bay Area, have already cast doubt on Newsom’s plan, arguing that current health conditions would make it nearly impossible to reopen on his timeline, while teachers unions have been reluctant to return to the classroom. The governor reiterated Friday that he would not force schools to resume in-person instruction.

“If we’re going to successfully educate our most vulnerable kids,” he said, “we have to do it in partnership with (school districts). This notion of imposition, closed fist versus an open hand, is a distinction for me that’s important.”

Facing a projected $54.3 billion shortfall, California lawmakers and Newsom approved a spending plan last summer that relied on reserve accounts and internal borrowing to avoid widespread cuts to health and social services during the coronavirus pandemic.

Officials hoped they could reverse billions of dollars in reduced or deferred funding for universities, courts, affordable housing grants, state worker pay and schools with a federal bailout. That aid did not materialize last year, leaving California with difficult choices about how to prepare for bigger deficits expected in years ahead. State leaders resume their push for Congress, newly controlled by Democrats, to provide relief.

Some of those programs would see their budgets rebound under Newsom’s plan, including nearly $281 million more for the University of California and California State University, as well as $350 million in one-time money for the university systems to address their maintenance backlog. After a year in which wildfires wreaked havoc on the state, the governor proposed $143 million to add 30 fire crews.

Building on state efforts to house more of California’s growing homeless population during the pandemic, Newsom proposed $750 million to extend a program to convert hotels, vacant apartment buildings and other sites into permanent supportive housing. Local governments that received grants, including San Francisco and Oakland, have bought more than 6,000 units so far. Another $1 billion would be made available to apply the same model to mental health and senior care facilities.

The governor is also seeking more than $300 million to bolster California’s coronavirus vaccine distribution efforts, which have been slow in the first few weeks since the state began receiving doses.

Asian shares mostly up on Wall Street rally, stimulus hopes By YURI KAGEYAMAJanuary 7, 2021

A currency trader walks by the screens showing the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI), left, and the foreign exchange rate between U.S. dollar and South Korean won at the foreign exchange dealing room of the KEB Hana Bank headquarters in Seoul, South Korea, Friday, Jan. 8, 2021. Asian shares mostly rose Friday on hopes for additional economic stimulus after U.S. Congress confirmed Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

TOKYO (AP) — Asian shares were mostly higher Friday on hopes for additional economic stimulus after U.S. Congress confirmed Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election.

Japan’s state of emergency to combat surging coronavirus cases, which kicked in Friday, did little to dampen market optimism. The benchmark Nikkei 225 jumped 1.7% in morning trading to 27,965.50. The declaration, announced by Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, asks people to stay home and refrain from going out at night to dine and drink.

South Korea’s Kospi gained 2.5% to 3,107.39, while Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 edged up 0.3% to 6,734.50. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng added nearly 0.9% to 27,788.46, while the Shanghai Composite was little changed, inching down less than 0.1% to 3,575.60.

Regional share prices were boosted by major U.S. stock indexes surging to all-time highs.

“Asia markets tracked the Wall Street optimism for a second morning, climbing amid the sustained hopes of further fiscal injections in the U.S. to keep the recovery on track,” said Jingyi Pan, a market strategist at IG in Singapore.

The S&P 500 rose 1.5% to a record 3,803.79. Investors were reassured by Congress’ confirmation of Joe Biden’s presidential election win and a shift in control of the Senate to the Democrats and largely moved on from the previous day’s violence and chaos at the Capitol building.

President Donald Trump has issued a statement saying there will be an “orderly transition on January 20th,” although he continues to claim falsely that he won. Jon Ossoff was declared the winner of a Georgia runoff election, tipping control of the Senate to Democrats.

With Democrats fully in control of Washington, Wall Street is anticipating the Biden administration and Congress will try to deliver $2,000 checks to most Americans, increase spending on infrastructure and take other measures to nurse the economy amid the worsening pandemic.

“The expectations are shifting to more stimulus, sooner, which is generally better for the economy and better for the market as well,” said Rob Haworth, senior investment strategy director at U.S. Bank Wealth Management.

The rally was broad-based, though the S&P 500′s technology sector notched the biggest gain, recouping losses after a pullback a day earlier. The Dow gained 0.7% to 31,041.13. The tech-heavy Nasdaq climbed 2.6% to 13,067.48. The Russell 2000 picked up 1.9% to 2,096.89.

Wall Street’s latest rally adds to gains from a day before, when stocks rose on the results of two Senate runoff elections in Georgia that went to the Democrats. Investors are largely looking past the current political ugliness — and the pandemic’s acceleration around the world — and are focusing instead on prospects for an improving economy. Hopes are also growing about the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines to help daily life around the world get closer to normal. That has investors anticipating a explosive return to growth for corporate profits later this year.

In energy trading, benchmark U.S. crude added 32 cents to $51.15 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It gained 20 cents on Thursday to $50.83 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 29 cents to $54.67 a barrel.

In currency trading, the U.S. dollar rose to 103.83 Japanese yen from 103.80 yen late Thursday. The euro cost $1.2260, down from $1.2270.

___

AP Business Writers Stan Choe and Alex Veiga contributed.

Capitol attack may have divided Republicans, but it didn’t make Biden’s job easier

Joe Garofoli Jan. 9, 2021 Updated: Jan. 9, 2021 4:51 p.m.

President-elect Joe Biden plans to introduce his coronavirus stimulus proposal within days.

Photo: Susan Walsh / Associated Press

Joe Biden says his “overarching job” will be to calm the nation after Donald Trump inspired a mob to overrun the Capitol — much like Gerald Ford sought to do when Richard Nixon resigned after the Watergate scandal. “My fellow Americans,” Ford said after taking the oath of office in August 1974, “our long national nightmare is over.”

Biden said the Capitol attack will make it “a lot easier” for him to fulfill his campaign promise to “heal the soul of the nation,” because many Republicans have privately told him they were mortified by what happened.

But it won’t be easier for Democrats to pass Biden’s agenda simply because Republicans are fractured over Trump’s role in the attack Wednesday and the vote to certify the election that followed it. Washington is still as divided as ever.

“The world changed Tuesday, for sure,” when Democrats swept two U.S. Senate races in Georgia to gain full control in Washington, said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with Inside Elections, a nonpartisan Washington political website.

“But we still don’t know how much the world changed Wednesday,” he said. “That’s still an open question.”

John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that “from a political perspective,” the insurrection changed Washington. “But from a policy perspective — not really.”

Here are some of the factors standing in Biden’s way:

Kumbaya moments rarely last: There is a long history of Washington partisans linking arms in solidarity briefly after a national tragedy. Key word: briefly.

Ten years ago, Washington lawmakers were shocked when Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot and badly wounded during a constituent event in her Arizona district. Days later, as a show of unity at the State of the Union address, lawmakers of the two parties sat next to each other in Congress instead of in their partisan half of the chamber, as is customary. Soon thereafter, they returned to their partisan corners.

There was no such display of temporary unity after Wednesday’s attack. Instead, some lawmakers almost got into a fistfight on the House floor during a debate over Republican objections to accepting Pennsylvania’s vote for Biden.

More than half of House Republicans voted not to certify the Electoral College results from Pennsylvania and Arizona. Many repeated the same falsehoods about a rigged election that drove the mob’s insurrection hours earlier.

“In the House, many of those freshman members got (elected) by exploiting divisions” in the country, said Jessica Taylor, who analyzes Congress for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Those attitudes are unlikely to soften when Biden is president, she said.

Democrats’ advantage is small: Biden plans to introduce the details of his coronavirus stimulus proposal within days. He said it would be in the “trillions” of dollars, without offering details. But Biden’s proposal won’t become easier to pass just because Republicans are in disarray. Democrats hold the levers of power in Washington, but not by much. The Senate is evenly split, with Vice President- elect Kamala Harris holding the tiebreaking vote, and Democrats are clinging to an 11-vote advantage in the House, the smallest for either party in 20 years.

One analyst cautioned Democrats against overreaching leftward.

“The danger for the Biden team is if they come in and try to get as much as they can now without reaching across the aisle,” said Mary Kate Cary, a top White House adviser to President George H.W. Bush who is now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Miller Center at the University of Virginia. “If they do that, they’re going to get a lot of backlash.”

The backlash, Cary said, will come from “voters who considered themselves the forgotten people, the ones who were left behind by both parties. Trump elevated them.”

Biden believes that his long relationship with Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, will enable him to work with the GOP and be a president, as he often says, “for all Americans.”

But he’s facing a lot of pressure from progressives who worry that he will fritter away the short time that Democrats may hold the majority in pursuit of Republicans who want little to do with his agenda. Midterm elections are seldom kind to a new president’s party, and Democrats are approaching 2022 with anxiety.

Stronger moderates, tougher road: Partisan lines were immutable and rarely crossed during the Trump era. But it will be easier for Republicans to join with Democrats after Trump leaves the White House.

“Trump’s base just got a lot smaller (after the Capitol attack), and that changes the power dynamic in Congress,” Cary said. “It is splintered now. There will be people who will stick with him through this, but many won’t. The center of gravity in the Senate is moving toward the middle.”

Hudak, the Brookings Institution senior fellow, said that “the most powerful man in the Senate right now is Joe Manchin.”

The West Virginian is one of the last of his kind, a conservative Democrat. When he first ran for the Senate in 2010, he bragged that he would repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act and touted his endorsement from the National Rifle Association. In one commercial, he fired a shot through a copy of California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer’s cap-and-trade bill, intended to minimize climate change.

On Friday, the stock market dropped after a report that Manchin would oppose $2,000 direct payments as part of Biden’s coronavirus aid package. An aide later walked back his remarks.

“If Democrats really want something, they have to make it work for Joe Manchin,” Hudak said.

That really narrows the window of what Biden could achieve in the near term. Moderate Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine could also become more regular swing votes with Trump out of the picture. On Friday, Murkowski said she would support impeaching Trump.

“You’re starting to see the battle lines where everyone stands now shift a little,” said Rubashkin, the Inside Elections analyst. “Things are fluid in a few places.

“Where some people were in the Trump presidency,” Rubashkin said, “they won’t be in the same place in a Biden presidency.”

The big unknown remains how engaged the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump in 2020 will be this year — and whether they still will be as devoted to him after he leaves the White House.

“A sizable portion of the population still believes that this election was stolen,” Rubashkin said. “This week showed what an incredibly difficult task Joe Biden has ahead of him.”

Why Kamala Harris will still be a key player in the Senate In an evenly split Senate, the incoming vice president will give Democrats an edge

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) questions Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh during the second day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill September 5, 2018 in Washington, DC. Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy on the court left by retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

By EMILY DERUY | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: January 7, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. | UPDATED: January 8, 2021 at 5:35 p.m.

Kamala Harris may be departing the Senate for the White House, but the Bay Area native will soon play an even more pivotal and historic role on Capitol Hill as vice president — the decisive vote.

With this past week’s dramatic special election in Georgia sending two more Democrats to the Senate, the powerful governing body will be divided, 50-50, between Republicans and Democrats. That means Harris, who is already making history as the first woman and Black vice president, will also serve as a tiebreaker if the Senate is split on President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees or federal judges.

With Democrats’ legislative agenda on the line, the outgoing California senator will have an outsize influence both in the chamber and behind the scenes in advancing the Biden administration’s efforts on everything from quashing the coronavirus pandemic to climate change.

“She’ll probably spend more time in the U.S. Senate this year than she did last year,” said longtime political strategist Dan Schnur, noting how Harris spent a good chunk of 2020 campaigning.

The 50-50 split is rare, happening just three times in the country’s history. In the 1880s and 1950s, the Senate was briefly evenly divided, and the body was similarly split for a few months in 2001, when Republican Sen. Trent Lott and Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle worked out an agreement to divide committee memberships in a bid to give Democrats some power and avoid complete gridlock.

The Constitution declares the vice president as the president of the Senate, meaning even though the body will have an equal number of Republican and Democratic senators, Democrats will have control over which bills come to the floor. For the first time in more than a decade, they’ll also control the House of Representatives, led by San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the White House. The last time one party wielded that level of control was during former President Barack Obama’s first two years in office from 2009-10.

That doesn’t mean the more liberal party will be able to do whatever it wants. Most legislation, such as health care bills, not connected to the budget requires 60 votes to close debate and move to a decision. And with the Senate evenly split, wooing moderates like Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, and Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, will become even more crucial for both parties.

To preserve his campaign promise to be a coalition builder, Biden may not want to lean on Harris too often to cast a deciding vote. But behind the scenes, Schnur said, expect him to rely on Harris and her team to be in constant contact with Collins and her staff to try to find common ground on where the Maine senator can join Democrats and help carry legislation to passage. Over his decades in Washington, Biden developed a reputation as a consummate collaborator on Capitol Hill.

“I think, knowing Joe Biden, that what he wants to do is to build a strong partnership between the president and the vice president, similar to the relationship Bill Clinton had with Al Gore and that Barack Obama had with Joe Biden,” said Leon Panetta, a former Clinton administration chief of staff and former Obama administration Defense Secretary.

“I would imagine now that because Kamala is going to be the deciding vote on the Senate side, that it would make sense that she would play a larger role in terms of trying to build the coalitions necessary to pass the president’s agenda.”

That may be a challenge for Harris. She has spent just four years in the Senate and hasn’t had decades to build up relationships with members of a body where some sitting lawmakers have served since she was a child. Harris is known more for her prosecutorial style and intense questioning of Trump administration officials. But Barbara O’Connor, a professor emeritus of communications at Sacramento State University, said she’s encouraged by Harris’s work so far as vice president-elect alongside Biden and sees her as capable of becoming a consensus builder. There may be a unique opportunity, O’Connor said, for lawmakers reeling from Wednesday’s storming of the Capitol by a violent pro-Trump mob to form new personal relationships that could lead to collaborative legislative work down the line.

“I think you have a lot of people who are speaking to each other for the first time,” she said. “I’m really pretty optimistic.”

Panetta, a Catholic who says he’s resorting to a lot of Hail Marys these days, is also hopeful.

“A line has been crossed by what happened on Wednesday,” he said during a phone interview from the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at CSU Monterey Bay, “and it can either motivate people to respond to their better angels or it can inspire their worst instincts.”

“You’ve got to be able to build relationships where members know that your word is good,” Panetta said. “I know Joe can do that. That’s the nature of how he operates. And I think Kamala can do it as well because that’s what Joe will want.”

And while political analysts have cautioned progressives against getting too optimistic about a packed legislative agenda, Schnur and O’Connor think there may be room for compromise in some areas like climate change. More regulations? Probably not. More investment in clean energy infrastructure? Entirely possible.

Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna College politics professor and Congressional expert, said the two parties may also be able to reach agreements around the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine and disability issues.

The Georgia results have already prompted some progressives, scarred after President Donald Trump’s successful appointment of three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, to urge Justice Stephen Breyer to retire and allow Biden to use his newfound Senate majority to appoint a new, younger liberal justice. Whether Breyer obliges remains to be seen.

Regardless, having Harris stationed to break a tie should allow Biden to quickly push through the confirmation of progressive Cabinet secretaries, such as Neera Tanden as the head of the Office of Management and Budget and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as health secretary, who might otherwise be subjected to a drawn-out, bitter partisan battle.

Unlike in the past when some vice presidents have largely stayed out of sight and out of mind, Harris now has an opportunity to make herself particularly useful and visible — and to continue setting herself up for a future presidential run.

“Harris is going to be the second most important person in Washington,” Schnur said, “but possibly the busiest.”

California legislators will return to flurry of major pandemic response votes

Dustin Gardiner Jan. 10, 2021 Updated: Jan. 10, 2021 5:49 p.m.

Assembly member Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier (Los Angeles County), and other members of the state Assembly are sworn in to office last month. To make sure the Assembly members had enough room to follow social distancing guidelines because of the coronavirus, the session was held at the Golden 1 Center in Sacramento, home of the Sacramento Kings.

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press 2020

SACRAMENTO — California legislators who return to work Monday will quickly be asked to vote on a flurry of high-profile spending measures to confront the worsening toll of the coronavirus pandemic. At the top of their agenda: find a way to reopen schools for millions of students who have been out of the classroom since March, provide cash payments to low-income families, distribute COVID-19 vaccines more quickly, and extend an eviction moratorium.

Ostensibly, legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom agree on the broad strokes of the budget proposal he released Friday, which includes a $5 billion “immediate action” plan he wants approved within weeks.

“Right now, we have one job: stopping COVID and helping those who have been affected,” said state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda. “Everything else is just second.”

But beyond their shared goals, legislators are eager to reshape several of Newsom’s key proposals and assert more oversight over the governor’s pandemic response.

Among the most pressing issues for the Assembly and Senate:

Reopening schools: Newsom has proposed offering schools more money if they reopen for in-person learning by mid-February. His Safe Schools for All proposal would give districts $450 to $750 for every elementary student, money that districts can use to implement safety measures.

The $2 billion plan is designed to give districts a financial incentive to bring back younger students and those who are vulnerable, including disabled and homeless children and foster youth.

But some Democratic legislators say tying funding to a specific deadline could give more money to wealthy communities and punish districts in urban areas that face more challenges in reopening.

“It seems unfair,” said Sen. Connie Leyva, a Democrat from Chino (San Bernardino County) who chairs the Education Committee. “What about smaller or poorer school districts that can’t get up and running by then? We don’t want to penalize them.”

Leyva said legislators hope to refine Newsom’s plan by emphasizing in-person learning for vulnerable students first.

The governor released his proposal amid a growing demand from parents to reopen schools. Newsom wants the Legislature to approve his proposal “in the next few weeks,” citing what he sees as the negative effects of distance learning on young children’s education and emotional health.

“In this environment, we can’t wait,” Newsom said at a news conference Friday. “Those kids are falling through the cracks.”

Eviction moratorium: California’s partial eviction moratorium protecting tenants facing hardship because of the pandemic expires at the end of January, raising concerns that thousands of renters could lose their housing.

Newsom says he wants to extend the law, but he hasn’t said for how long. “That’s part of the negotiations, that’s part of the give and take,” he said Friday. Legislators also aren’t sure how long they want to extend the moratorium. Competing bills introduced last month could extend the pause for two months or through the end of the year, as Assembly member David Chiu proposed.

The San Francisco Democrat said widespread evictions could increase deaths during the most dangerous phase of the pandemic. “We must keep people safe in their homes,” he tweeted.

Cash payments: Newsom is pushing lawmakers to swiftly approve one-time $600 direct payments to low-income people, an effort designed in part to help keep families housed. The payments would cost $2.4 billion.

Checks would be sent to taxpayers who received the state’s earned income tax credit for the working poor, typically those who earn $30,000 or less. Newsom said payments could go out within weeks.

Assembly member Phil Ting, the San Francisco Democrat who chairs the budget committee, said there’s broad support for such payments.

“If we don’t do it now, we run the risk of having a greater catastrophe down the road,” Ting said. “A little bit of money today will help significantly tomorrow.”

Some legislators, however, also support larger or more frequent payments. Last summer, Democrats unsuccessfully called for the state to pay an extra $600 a week in federal unemployment benefits that expired.

Assembly member Alex Lee, D-San Jose, said Friday that matching the “paltry” $600 one-time payments that Congress approved in last month’s stimulus package isn’t enough to protect people facing economic ruin.

Some progressive legislators, including Lee, called Thursday for the state to set aside an additional $5 billion to help tenants facing eviction for missing rent.

“It is so not enough with the dire straits we’re in, especially in California,” Lee said of $600 payments. “We need to be getting real, material aid in people’s hands, so they can pay back that debt.”

Newsom has also asked legislators to quickly approve a swath of aid for business owners, including $575 million for grants to help small businesses adapt operations to the pandemic and $71 million to waive fees for bars, restaurants, barbershops and other businesses forced to close or limit service.

Vaccine distribution: California has received about 2 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine, but it has been slow to administer those doses. Newsom proposes spending an estimated $372 million to improve distribution.

The governor has said the money will help the state build the vaccine management system for health providers, purchase transportation and storage supplies, and expand a public education campaign. His budget doesn’t give specifics of how much would be spent where. Newsom didn’t include the vaccine funding in his immediate budget action plan, and legislators said they also hadn’t received details.

Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat who chairs the Health Committee, said that beyond improving the logistics of administering doses, the state must fund an extensive public education campaign to counter falsehoods from anti-vaccine activists.

He said misinformation about the risks of the vaccine is spreading rapidly on social media and threatens to undermine the vaccine’s effectiveness if enough people aren’t inoculated.

“The biggest challenge has been that the pandemic response has been politicized,” Pan said. People’s “Instagram and Facebook feed has been fused with lies and myths that we have to basically explain away.”

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.

Other Media:

December 7, 2020

Natural Resources Agency Awards Grants to Expand Access to the Outdoors and Enhance Recreational Opportunities Across the State

SACRAMENTO – The California Natural Resources Agency today announced $27.7 million in funding for projects that will expand access to the outdoors and boost recreational opportunities for communities across the state.

The funding will support 19 projects, 12 of which are in disadvantaged communities, ranging from constructing new trails to planting trees to acquiring land for future trails. The grants are part of the the Recreational Trails and Greenways grant program funded by Proposition 68.

"Increased access to our natural spaces is more important than ever. These multi-benefit projects not only enhance recreational opportunities but increase access which can improve physical and mental health," California Secretary for Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot said. "We are excited to award these grants to support organizations and local governments that are committed to expanding and improving access to the outdoors.”

In 2018, California voters passed the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68), which directed $27.7 million to the Natural Resources Agency for competitive grants that provide non-motorized infrastructure development and enhancements that promote new or alternate access to parks, waterways, outdoor recreational pursuits, and forested or other natural environments to encourage health-related active transportation and opportunities for Californians to reconnect with nature.

A few projects are highlighted below, with the full list of projects following.

The Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency was awarded $609,233 to develop a recreational trail and trailhead at the protected 250-acre Steele Peak Reserve. The project represents the first recreational park opportunity in the area by providing access to protected land.

The Paradise Recreation and Park District was awarded $507,392 to construct a multi-use natural surface trail loop to connect a disadvantaged community to recreational resources. The project will provide an amenity that helps promote healing through nature in a community traumatized by the Camp Fire. National City was awarded $1.6 million to convert an existing roadway into a Class 1 bikeway and pedestrian path providing access to multiple recreational opportunities. The project will transform this segment into an active transportation and recreational space for public use.

FULL LIST OF AWARDS Butte County:

• Paradise Recreation and Park District, $507,392, Magalia and Paradise Lake Loop and Butte County Rail Trail Project.

Contra Costa County:

• City of Richmond, $1,000,000, Point Molate Bay Trail. • East Bay Regional Park District, $1,202,830, Bridge to Beach - Extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate.

El Dorado County:

• American River Conservancy, $504,550, Cosumnes River Recreational Trail System.

Humboldt County:

• The Trust for Public Land, $3,877,928, McKinleyville Community Forest.

Imperial County:

• City of Holtville, $1,262,000, The Alamo River Trail Trestle Bridge Trail.

Kern County:

• National Audubon Society, Audubon California, $348,524, Kern River Preserve Trails and Trailhead Project.

Monterey County:

• City of Pacific Grove, $381,922, Point Pinos Trail Project.

Placer County:

• Placer County Department of Public Works, $3,027,090, Hidden Falls Regional Park Trails and Open Space Expansion Project.

Plumas County:

• Feather River Land Trust, $1,621,000, Sierra Valley Wetlands Public Access Project.

Riverside County:

• Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, $609,233, Steele Peak Reserve Inaugural Trail. San Bernardino County:

• City of Twentynine Palms, $901,850, Twentynine Palms Flood Control Channel Trail Development.

San Diego County:

• City of National City, $1,659,680, W. 19th Street Greenway. • San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority, $1,397,800, Osuna Segment of the Coast to Crest Trail.

San Luis Obispo County:

• County of San Luis Obispo, $3,146,800, Yerba Buena Creek Trail Segment of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail.

Santa Cruz County:

• Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, $2,050,000, San Vicente Redwoods Public Access Trails Construction, Phase 1.

Siskiyou County:

• Mount Shasta Trail Association, $1,114,906, Gateway Trail Project.

Stanislaus County:

• City of Modesto, $2,968,885, TRRP Riverwalk - Gateway to Neece Dr.

Ventura County:

• Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, $167,610, Ojai Meadows Preserve Bridge.