Becerra, X Rep
---
Xavier Becerra Democratic 330 N Brand Blvd Ste 700 Glendale, CA 91203 Voting Rights Attorney
steyer 5 26 takes max chevron $
COMMON DREAMS
Make no mistake about it: Corporate lobbyists are horrified that Tom Steyer might become California’s governor. To stop Steyer, corporate forces and their allies in the Democratic establishment have moved from now-disgraced Rep. Eric Swalwell to Xavier Becerra, former US Secretary of Health and Human Services. Becerra, who won praise from the right-wing Murdoch press for pocketing the maximum campaign donation from Chevron, is now bending to the will of private interests on healthcare, according to KQED public radio.
---
coc legal BS:
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - Both the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary and assistant Secretary received waivers for previous work in their respective states, however the scope of those waivers is being withheld, according to a watchdog group.
“The contents of the waiver are not available to the public and they have not been provided to us through our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request,” said Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT).
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and his assistant Secretary Rachel Levine signed certifications of ethics agreement compliance, which are available at the Office of Government Ethics website, however, the certifications do not provide details of the waivers granted for the states of CaliforniaandPennsylvania, respectively.
Becerra is the former attorney general of California while Levine is the former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
“Certainly, if there were matters that Becerra participated in personally and substantially when he was at the state of California and then they allowed him to participate in those same matters while he's at HHS, those would be concerning because he was the attorney general for the state of California,” Chamberlain told Legal Newsline.
PPT sued HHS last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging the documents have been wrongfully withheld.
“What surprised us about this FOIA request is that it was filed last year in early June and we're coming to the point where a couple of these waivers are going to expire in March so there is the potential that, for the entire time these waivers were in effect, the American public had no access to them even though the agency has the option to release them publicly if they want or they can release them in response to a FOIA request, which we submitted. But, these aren't the kind of waivers that they provide to the Office of Government Ethics, which would be posted on their website,” Chamberlain said.
PPT seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the release of the waivers in compliance with the requirements of FOIA, according to the Feb. 24 complaint.
“The reason we filed the lawsuit is that HHS is not complying with their legal obligations, and we felt that the only way to get them to do so and to provide the documents would be through legal action,” Chamberlain added. “Right now, the trust from the American public in its government is at an all-time low and potential conflicts of interest and possible misconduct add to that.”
The lawsuit further names Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, assistant secretary for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders who also received waivers.
:{:{===}:
ggl 6 26
I Overview
Xavier Becerra's 2026 gubernatorial campaign and supporting political action committees (PACs) are backed by a mix of corporate interests, labor unions, and individual donors. His major financial backers include the California Association of Realtors, labor unions like the Laborers PAC, the Pechanga Band of Indians, and corporate donors including Airbnb, Meta, and Chevron. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Top Contributors & PACs
Independent expenditure committees supporting Becerra have raised millions, with top contributors including the California Association of Realtors ($2.75M), Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition ($2.45M), and the Pechanga Band of Indians ($2M). Other significant funding comes from the California Medical Association, Airbnb-sponsored committees, and Meta Platforms. [1, 2]
Key Corporate Donors & Spending
Major corporations and industry groups, including Chevron, DaVita, and Protect Small Businesses (sponsored by McDonald's), have contributed heavily to independent expenditure campaigns, with contributions reaching $500,000 each. [1, 2, 3]
Individual Donors & Support
At the campaign level, Becerra raised nearly $14 million, with max-out contributions from individuals such as Kristin Johnson, Alexandra Seros, and Raul Ayala. His donor base was further bolstered by an influx of support from former backers of candidate Eric Swalwell. [1, 2]
For comprehensive and updated financial disclosures, you can review official data on Xavier Becerra — CA Governor 2026 or via OpenSecrets.
---
---
steyer site
Big Oil Becerra’s Receipts | Tom Steyer
Big Oil Becerra’s Receipts
*His attempts to lie about the $500,000 check to back his campaign makes it clear that Xavier Becerra is on defense over corporate contributions
CALIFORNIA —Xavier Becerra is hoping that Californians aren’t paying too much attention to the news this weekend, as one of his campaign’s top donors, Chevron, is making waves for price gouging Californians at the pump.
This weekend,Becerra told KMPH it was an “outright lie” that Chevron is giving him money. Alas, here are the receipts:
*Chevron cut the independent expenditure that solely exists to support Becerra a $500,000 check last week
*Becerra’s campaign cashed a max out donation from Chevron in June 2025
You’re going to want to hold onto these as Becerra continues to deflect and deceive voters to distance himself from the Texas-based oil giant.
“To use Becerra’s own words, it’s an ‘outright lie’ that he’s telling about who supports his campaign: he and Chevron are one and the same,” said Steyer for Governor spokesperson Danni Wang.“Chevron and corporate special interests keep jacking up prices on California families, and are banking on Becerra to keep it that way. California families need real change, and the only person who can deliver that is Tom Steyer.”
As Attorney General, Becerra “stayed mum” on an investigation into ExxonMobil. In this campaign, he also backed increasing oil drilling in California and continues benefiting from millions in corporate-backed outside spending.
In contrast, Steyer has spent over a decade taking on Big Oil and winning. He fought for and won nearly $2 billion for clean energy in schools. Steyer has released a robust planto bring down costs for California families by expanding clean energy innovation and making polluters pay.
Tom is endorsed by prominent climate experts and environmental champions, including: Sierra Club, California Environmental Voters, Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Bill McKibben, and Jane Fonda.
---
---
ref kqed
As California’s attorney general during the first Trump presidency, Xavier Becerra made headlines as a hero of the Democratic resistance, suing the Trump administration more than 120 times to defend key progressive policies, including the Affordable Care Act, the environment and immigrant and workers rights.
But as Becerra rises to the top of the Democratic field for governor, critics say that on some issues closer to home, he sided with powerful interest groups, including law enforcement and fossil fuel companies — and that on housing, he was as likely to use his power as attorney general to block development as to push for more.
As attorney general, Becerra declined to investigate oil companies accused of misleading investors and the public on climate change. And perhaps most notably, Becerra’s office went to court to fight against the release of police misconduct records following California’s passage of a landmark transparency law — and once threatened journalists with criminal charges for possessing records his office had sent them.
“Xavier Becerra just seems to reflexively have been against any of these measures to improve transparency into police records,” said Jason Paladino, one of the reporters threatened by Becerra’s office. “When you look at the fact that one of his major backers throughout his campaigns has been the police unions, it’s hard to not make that connection that he’s got this powerful constituency in the state, which he feels somewhat beholden to.”
It’s a characterization that Becerra and his supporters reject. Jonathan Underland, a spokesperson for his campaign, said Becerra has “always made decisions based on protecting Californians and defending the law, not on politics or who supported his campaigns.”
Those close to Becerra when he was attorney general paint a picture of a hardworking, principled leader who came into office prepared to push back on President Donald Trump and protect Californians — and whose views on issues including the environment and housing were shaped by his upbringing as the son of working-class immigrants.
“Not everyone was aggressive in those early days [of Trump],” said Amanda Renteria, who served as Becerra’s chief operating officer for his first year as attorney general. “He really was like, nope, we know what’s coming at us and we’re gonna be ready … from the first conversation I had, he had a real insight about what it meant to have a Trump administration and be in the state of California.”
Becerra surged in the polls after the exit of former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who suspended his campaign in April amid sexual assault allegations he has denied.
A complicated record in California
The attorney general’s office has launched three California governors and is perhaps the position in state government most analogous to the top job: attorneys general confront many of the same policy challenges a governor faces, from housing and homelessness to public safety and the environment, and they oversee a staff of more than 5,000.
The record Becerra built in Sacramento, particularly on three issues where California’s next governor will face immediate tests — police accountability; climate and the oil industry; and housing — offers the clearest window into how he might actually govern, and whose interests he would protect.
Yet much of the scrutiny of Becerra’s record since he surged in the crowded field has centered on his time leading the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden.
As California continues to face hostility from a second Trump administration, those federal fights he took on as attorney general are newly relevant — and Becerra has framed himself as the best person to wage them. But on other issues, critics say Becerra struck a cautious tone and was unwilling to buck the status quo.
That includes environmentalists’ critiques of how he handled the fossil fuel industry.
“His time as attorney general was a story of what he didn’t do,” said Kassie Siegel, climate political director at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund. “He did sue the Trump administration 120 times, but he didn’t do the things his successor did that were needed and that he was called on to do.”
Melanie Fontes Rainer spent nine years working for Becerra, first in the attorney general’s office and then when he was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Fontes Rainer, who led a healthcare unit as an assistant attorney general, said Becerra had the foresight when he was appointed attorney general to create that new unit, which focused exclusively on healthcare policy and was able to lead California’s fight against Trump’s attacks on the Affordable Care Act.
“At that point, nobody had sued the president in this manner and had necessarily taken on this national role in protecting, whether it was national civil rights or national healthcare,” she said.
The expertise in that healthcare unit allowed California to be a leader in other areas, Fontes Rainer said, such as successful actions against companies involved in the opioid crisis. She said Becerra was eager to take on important, progressive issues: winning on behalf of DACA recipients at the U.S. Supreme Court; suing Sutter Health on behalf of patients and workers; protecting abortion andLGBTQ rights.
“He expects you to work your ass off, because he works his ass off,” she said, adding that Becerra is willing to take on powerful interests if the moment calls for it. “He is never gonna be the leader who is all about himself.”
Critics, though, say there were clearly some groups that Becerra didn’t want to challenge.
A fight over transparency
Becerra received heat for several incidents involving law enforcement, including his refusal to investigate a police shooting in Vallejo — a case his successor later pursued — and his failure to probe a jailhouse informant scandal in Orange County that led to a federal investigation and settlement.
But it was his legal battle against Senate Bill 1421 that drew the sharpest criticism from within his own party. The state law, passed in 2018 after years of advocacy by civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers, made public for the first time the disciplinary records of police officers accused of sexual assault, use of force and other serious misconduct.
After the law took effect, the attorney general’s office didn’t just refuse to release its own records— questioning whether the law applied to records created before the law’s passage — it also sent guidance to law enforcement agencies that critics say gave police departments across California cover to refuse compliance, too.
In recent interviews, Becerra has continued to defend how he handled the case, saying he didn’t fight for secrecy but rather clarity to ensure his office was following the law. But even after an appeals court ruled against him, his office continued to resist, and the lawsuits dragged on for six years.
“It was just an extreme position to take,” said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which successfully sued Becerra and other police agencies, along with media organizations including KQED. “That office really fought tooth and nail to keep many of the records under lock and key.”
Becerra’s office shocked legal experts again when it sent a letter to two journalists at UC Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program ordering them to destroy a list of 12,000 current and former police officers and applicants who had been convicted of crimes.
The list was provided to the reporters by Becerra’s own office and another state agency in response to a public records request. In the letter, the attorney general argued that even possessing the records was a criminal act.
“It’s either clear ignorance of a core First Amendment principle, or it’s willful disregard of it. Neither of those, I think reflect very well,” Snyder said.
The attorney general never made good on his threats, even after the reporters published their story.
But Paladino, one of those reporters, said the letter was concerning for numerous reasons: He argued it showed a hostility toward a free press, a misunderstanding of basic First Amendment law, and a willingness to kowtow to law enforcement groups.
“The legal letter was just completely wrong in its interpretation of the law. And it had real implications for press freedom,” he said. “He was given a bunch of chances to sort of be like, oh, in hindsight, we shouldn’t have sent that letter. And at every turn, he has doubled down.”
In a recent interview with the *Sacramento Bee*, Becerra again insisted that he was following the law.
“I simply repeated what the law says. If you are in possession of information that is confidential and you disclose and you make that information public, or you disclose it, you are subject to action for violation of privacy laws,” Becerra said.
Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), one of the state’s top law enforcement lobbying groups, rejected the notion that Becerra took positions in order to score political points with police groups. On the records fight, Marvel said, Becerra simply wanted to make sure the law was on his side before releasing information that could harm an officer’s career.
“Once the cat’s out of the bag, whether the information is accurate or not, it’s out of the bag,” said Marvel, whose group represents more than 85,000 rank-and-file police officers in the state.
PORAC endorsed two of Becerra’s opponents in the governor’s race, Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Democratic former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. But Marvel said he believes law enforcement would have a positive relationship with a Becerra as governor.
“I wouldn’t say he’s pro-cop, I’d say he’s pro-public safety,” Marvel said. “If ultimately Xavier Becerra becomes governor, I think I absolutely would have an open door.”
Friend or foe of Big Oil?
Becerra touts his environmental work as attorney general, including lawsuits targeting Trump’s moves to neuter greenhouse gas emission regulations, to undermine the Endangered Species Act, to roll back vehicle emission standards and expand offshore oil drilling. He also created an office of environmental justice to protect vulnerable communities.
In the governor’s race, though, he’s been hit by opponents over his ties to oil companies, with billionaire Tom Steyer in particular attacking Becerra for accepting donations from the industry, including Chevron’s $39,200 donation to his gubernatorial campaign, the maximum allowed by law. In response, Underland pushed back on Steyer, who invested in fossil fuel companies decades ago as a hedge fund manager.
“Xavier Becerra spent his time as attorney general actually fighting the fossil fuel companies in court — and winning. Unlike Tom Steyer, Becerra didn’t write them checks. He took them to court and won,” Underland said.
Earlier, as attorney general, Becerra angered environmental activists when he stayed mum on an investigation into ExxonMobil.
Becerra’s predecessor, Kamala Harris, reportedly launched the investigation into whether the company lied to investors about the links between fossil fuels and global warming. Becerra never addressed the investigation when he was attorney general, and did not file suit.
But Becerra’s successor, Attorney General Rob Bonta, did sue ExxonMobil and four other oil companies on similar grounds. That suit alleges that the oil companies have known for decades about the risks of fossil fuels but denied or downplayed those issues, and seeks to make them pay into a fund to help mitigate the effects of climate change in California.
It’s one of three dozen lawsuits like it filed by cities, counties and states in recent years, said Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund.
When he was attorney general, Becerra’s office did support some of those local lawsuits, but Siegel said he should have gone further.
The Center for Biological Diversity gave Becerra a C+ on its environmental scorecard, noting campaign contributions from oil companies and his opposition to a proposed state law that would make fossil fuel companies pay for the effects of climate change.
Siegel also pointed to Becerra’s answer in a recent debate, where he said he would support opening up oil drilling again in Kern County— something he had opposed as attorney general.
“You have to put all the pieces together,” she said. “The environmental consequences of more oil drilling in California would be massive.”
Becerra didn’t shy away from the issue when asked by KQED’s Scott Shafer why he accepted donations from Chevron and whether he would hold big companies like them accountable as governor.
Becerra noted that there were several lawsuits he filed or joined as attorney general against fossil fuel companies. He also talked about how many people companies like Chevron employ.
“Chevron — that’s the problem with politics — they’re not the bad guy,” Becerra said. “Does everybody here drive an electric vehicle? You need Chevron, I need Chevron, my people of the state of California need Chevron.”
But Renteria said voters shouldn’t assume that just because her former boss isn’t writing off big corporations that he won’t fight for the little guy.
“By nature, he’s like this protector,” she said, adding that he has a natural aversion to anyone “bullying or taking advantage” of people, and will do everything he can to fight on their behalf.
Building less, blocking more
But on one of the biggest issues facing the state — the need for more housing — critics say Becerra didn’t show that type of aggression as attorney general, instead seeming more interested in blocking housing developments than helping push market-rate development.
In 2021, for example, he joined two lawsuits to halt developments in San Diego County, saying they were in wildfire zones and didn’t include enough affordable housing.
Earlier, in 2019, Becerra sued Huntington Beach for refusing to add state-mandated low-income housing to its local housing plan, and in 2020, he joined a lawsuit to ensure that cities comply with state affordable housing laws.
Becerra points to those lawsuits as evidence of his commitment to ensuring local governments both built more housing in general and affordable housing in particular — and that they complied with state laws mandating more construction.
On the campaign trail this year, Becerra has stressed the state’s housing shortage as a key driver of affordability and promised to use the governor’s office to eliminate hurdles — including aggressively going after cities and counties that aren’t building enough. He has also pledged to declare a state of emergency around housing and embed his own housing experts in agencies across the state government to help remove obstacles to building.
Laura Foote, executive director of the pro-housing group YIMBY Action, said she gives Becerra credit for appearing more interested in the issue as a candidate than he did as attorney general, a shift that matches the state’s overall political evolution on the issue.
Related Articles
What Is California's ‘Jungle Primary’ — and Why Does It Matter so Much for the Governor’s Race?
“I think that now there’s sort of a greater recognition that the overall housing shortage is damaging everyone, not just low-income people. He has made that pivot,” she said.
But her group, YIMBY Action, which endorsed Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer in the governor’s race, gave Becerra a “C” grade on housing. It noted that when asked about holding cities accountable as attorney general, “he took the opportunity to brag about using CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act), one of the most potent and abused tools of the anti-housing movement, to block a housing development in San Diego.”
Those lawsuits were successful: After Becerra left the attorney general’s office, Bonta negotiated settlements that led one of the projects to be scrapped entirely; the site, now owned by the state, will be permanently conserved as open space. The other proposed project will move forward under a separate settlement, with thousands of housing units slated for a smaller area than the initial proposal, which will reduce wildfire risk.
In general, Foote said, Becerra seemed to focus almost exclusively on affordable housing as attorney general, like in the Huntington Beach case, which Huntington Beach settled in 2020.
“It was a good case for them to weigh in, but I think it did reveal in that administration a preference to be really focused on subsidized affordable housing and pushing back on explicit discriminatory things as opposed to getting involved in the larger housing supply issue overall,” Foote said.
But she added that Becerra didn’t have as many tools at his disposal as the current attorney general does, and that he’s promised to focus on accountability if he’s elected governor.
“He has already committed to doing a greater degree of enforcement than we have had under the Gavin Newsom administration. … Is it as much improvement as some of the other candidates have committed to? No, but I think he is already promising to do better than we have done over the last eight years,” Foote said.
As Becerra leans into his resume on the campaign trail, his opponents are trying to frame that experience as a liability. His campaign is pushing back.
“The record speaks for itself,” Underland said. “Xavier Becerra took on oil companies, fought cities blocking affordable housing, challenged the Trump administration over environmental rollbacks, and held powerful interests accountable in court.”
---
The former top-aide, Sean McCluskie, pleaded guilty in November to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. Federal prosecutors say McCluskie worked with Becerra's former campaign manager Dana Williamson and Sacramento Lobbyist Greg Campbell to funnel $225,000 out of one of Becerra's campaign accounts. All three have accepted plea deals with the federal government.
https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/the-high-cost-of-being-donald-trumps-enemy
an 320
Trump makes his disdain for California clear, lashing outat the Golden State as a “filthy dirty” and “horrible” outpost cursed by homelessness and wildfires. California, in turn, has challenged the Trump administration dozens of times on issues such as auto emissions, immigration and union dues.But it’s not cheap being one of Trump’s favorite enemies. And nowhere is that more apparent than in health care.State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has spent millions of dollars challenging the Trump administration more than a dozen timeson health care issues. For instance...
:{:{}:
}:
makes his disdain for California clear, lashing out at the Golden State as a “filthy dirty” and “horrible” outpost cursed by homelessness and wildfires. California, in turn, has challenged the Trump administration dozens of times on issues such as auto emissions, immigration and union dues.
But it’s not cheap being one of Trump’s favorite enemies. And nowhere is that more apparent than in health care.
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has spent millions of dollars challenging the Trump administration more than a dozen times on health care issues. For instance, he has taken the lead in legally defending the federal Affordable Care Act, and in fighting the administration’s “public charge” rule,which makes it harder for immigrants to obtain permanent residency status if they use certain public benefits, such as Medicaid.
And state lawmakers are adopting legislation to counteract federal health care actions, racking up the costs of passing and implementing new rules, such as banning the sale of short-term health plansand preventing the state from imposing work requirementson its Medicaid recipients.
The state’s total tab for its feud with the Oval Office is at least in the hundreds of millions, with billions more at stake. Here are three major ways California is losing health care money:
Title X Funding
In February 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services changed the rules for Title X, a program that funds family planning services. Under the previous rules, federal funds couldn’t pay for abortions. Now, these funds cannot even go to providers that refer patients elsewhere for abortions.
Clinics like Planned Parenthood affiliates, which refuse to abide by the new regulations, have surrendered their Title X money.
In California, that means the funding has been cut by millions of dollars.Essential Access Health, which runs the Title X program in California, said it couldn’t put a dollar figure on exactly how much funding has been lost. But according to the group, more than 366 health centers in 38 California counties received Title X funds in 2018. Today, that’s down to 251 centers in 19 counties.
While disputes over contraception coverage can be ideological, they also boil down to dollars and cents, according to Priscilla Smith, a reproductive law expert at Yale Law School.
“For California, that means more and more people who don’t have access to the coverage of their contraception will be using state resources both for contraceptive coverage and for health issues that result from their lack of access,” Smith said.
Essential Access Health, along with the state of California, Planned Parenthood and other plaintiffs, took the Trump administration to court over the regulations. A federal appeals judge sided with the administration in late February.
Medicaid Tax
Another big loss for the state could come from wonky tax policy.
The managed care organization (MCO) tax is a surcharge on the managed-care plans that provide coverage to about 10 million enrolleeson Medi-Cal, California’s public health insurance program for low-income people.
The tax has been around for several years but expired in July. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration asked for federal approval to extend it for three years — a request that seemed like such a sure thing.
“Based on the recent federal approval of a similar tax in Michigan, federal approval of a reauthorized California MCO tax package appears likely,” according to a February 2019 reportby the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.
No such luck. In February, federal officials rejected California’s request. Though it doesn’t affect the state this year, it will cost Medi-Cal up to $2 billionin lost revenue in the 2021-22 fiscal year.
“Michigan got something very similar — how come we didn’t?” asked Edwin Park, a research professor with Georgetown University who is based in California.
California would have to wipe out its reserves in the next two fiscal years to keep the Medi-Cal program whole, said Scott Graves, director of research at the California Budget & Policy Center.
“It creates a big hole down the road in the forecast,” he said.
The state plans to resubmit its request later this year, but the federal government isn’t racing to do California any favors.
“Because California is California, the concern is the Trump administration won’t approve,” Park said.
Boosting The Affordable Care Act
One of the Trump administration’s pet projects has been to repeal, replace or otherwise dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
Take the simple issue of advertising for Obamacare health insurance plans. In 2017, the Trump administration announcedit would slash the federal budget for advertising during open enrollment season by 90%.
California responded by increasing its advertising budget. For the 2020 open-enrollment season, the state budgeted $121 millionin marketing and outreach. The federal government budgeted $10 million.
And when the Trump administration eliminated the Affordable Care Act tax penalty for not having health insurance, California created one — and offered state-funded subsidies to help some people pay for insurance. This year, the state is spending about $430 millionto subsidize the premium costs for about 625,000 people.
“Obviously it would be great if the administration was doing its fair share, as they did in the old administration,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group.
California can absorb the costs of bolstering the Affordable Care Act, Wright said. What it can’t do, he said, is make up the difference if the Trump administration adopts other items on its health care wish list, such as making big cuts to the Medicaid program.
In his preliminary 2020-21 federal budget, Trump proposed cutting $920 billion from the program over the next decade — although that’s unlikely to fly in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
“The things that keep me up at night are the broad Medicaid changes that are in the billions of dollars,” Wright said. “That is stuff that’s on a whole other level.”
---
==
Ruling allows California to start enforcing efficiency standards ...
https://www.sfchronicle.com › news › article › Ruling-allows-California-to...
1.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/13/stave-climate-disaster-29-states-and-major-cities-sue-trump-epa-over-dirty-power
no lnx doc
August 13, 2019
byCommon Dreams
To Stave Off 'Climate Disaster,' 29 States and Major Cities Sue Trump EPA Over 'Dirty Power' Rule
"President Trump's attempt to gut our nation's Clean Power Plan is foolish. It's also unlawful."
by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
A coalition of 22 states and seven major American cities sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its repeal of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and a replacement that critics have dubbed the "Dirty Power" rule.
"My office, and this groundbreaking coalition of states and cities from across the nation, will fight back against this unlawful, do-nothing rule in order to protect our future from catastrophic climate change."
—New York Attorney General Letitia James
The lawsuit (pdf), filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, targets the administration's so-called Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which eases restrictions on coal plants imposed by the Obama plan, the first national policy to limit power plants' carbon emissions.
Shortly before Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, signed the ACE rule in June, the administration attempted to bolster the case for its plan by, as Common Dreams reported, "effectively rescinding the EPA's own estimate that it could lead to 1,400 premature deaths per year."
Critics of the Trump plan warn of its anticipated effects not only on people but also the planet, which is rapidly warming as a result of human activity.
"The science is indisputable; our climate is changing. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. Weather is becoming more and more extreme," New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is spearheading the suit, said in a statement Tuesday. "Without significant course correction, we are careening towards a climate disaster."
"Rather than staying the course with policies aimed at fixing the problem and protecting people’s health, safety, and the environment, the Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with this 'Dirty Power' rule," said James. "My office, and this groundbreaking coalition of states and cities from across the nation, will fight back against this unlawful, do-nothing rule in order to protect our future from catastrophic climate change."
James was joined by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia as well as the chief legal officers of Boulder, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and South Miami.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, in a statement Tuesday, specifically called out President Donald Trump for his administration's coal-friendly plan.
"[Trump's] fossil fuel protection plan fails everyone who stands for cleaner air. And it fails our economy, which depends on clean energy now more than ever."
—California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
"President Trump's attempt to gut our nation's Clean Power Plan is foolish. It's also unlawful," Becerra said. "His fossil fuel protection plan fails everyone who stands for cleaner air. And it fails our economy, which depends on clean energy now more than ever."
"We know what our energy future must look like, and we won't get there by following President Trump's misguided proposal," he added. "Because we're prepared to confront the climate crisis head-on, we're prepared to confront President Trump head-on in court."
The states and cities aren't alone in legally challenging the Trump rule, The New York Times reported Tuesday.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund are expected to file their own legal challenge this week.
Two leading public health groups, the American Public Health Association and the American Lung Association, have already filed suit to block the Trump administration plan.
The cases could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court—which, if the justices ruled in favor of Trump's EPA, could have sweeping implications for future efforts to implement federal restrictions on the energy industry.
"It would have a devastating effect on the ability of future administrations to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act," Richard L. Revesz, a professor at New York University who specializes in environmental law, told the Times. "It would essentially make it extremely difficult to regulate greenhouse gases effectively."
---
---
https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/heres-why-trumps-giveaways-to-dirty-industries-are-literally-deadly/
A new study out Tuesday backs up a series of legal challenges launched by Democratic state attorneys general alarmed by President Donald Trump’s deregulatory rollbacks designed to benefit polluting industries at the expense of public health, the environment, and the economy.
Climate & Health Showdown in the Courts: State Attorneys General Prepare to Fight (pdf) was published by the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the NYU School of Law, which provides support to state attorneys general working to defend and promote clean energy, climate, and environmental policies.
“This special report unmasks the Trump administration’s plan to give a climate pollution pass to industries that represent almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,” David J. Hayes, the center’s executive director, said in a statement.
“State attorneys general will not let the administration get away with its brazen attempt to turn major industries’ legal obligations to reduce damaging pollution into an invitation to continue to pollute—climate effects and adverse health impacts be damned,” he added.
[im g]
"In California, where we’re number one in clean energy and sell more zero-emission vehicles than any other state, we can’t afford to backslide,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.“We’ve seen the effects of climate change, from record wildfires to massive mudslides.”
As New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal summarized, “This report confirms what we already feared—that the federal government’s environmental rollbacks will have a devastating impact on our climate and our health.”
“As the Trump administration continues to advance policies that will cause even greater harm to our resources and our health, it is up to state attorneys general to lead the fight to stop these policies and protect Americans,” concluded New York Attorney General Letitia James.
James and Hayes, along with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, discussed the report and the ongoing legal battles against Trump’s pro-polluter agenda at a Tuesday afternoon press conference in Washington, D.C.:
---
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/methane-leak-lawsuit-california-2594248435.html
major California utility has agreed to pay nearly $120 million in a civil settlement over a huge methane leak that forced thousands to flee their homes in 2015.
The settlement between Southern California Gas Co. and the city of Los Angeles will pay for emissions mitigation, a long-term health study, and increased safety measures from the 2015 leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field, the largest single release of methane in U.S. history.
More than 100,000 metric tons of methane were released into the air over a nearly four-month period during the disaster, prompting complaints of headaches, nosebleeds and nausea from residents in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Porter Ranch near the storage facility.
As reported by the Sacramento Bee:
Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the tentative deal, which will be open to public comment and requires court approval, addressed violations of health and safety codes, the illegal discharge of air contaminants and failure to report the release of hazardous materials.
"There is no excuse for what happened," Becerra said in a statement. "For over four months, this leak exposed our communities to natural gas emissions that resulted in adverse health impacts and disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of Californians."
...
==
---
on track to 2x by 2025; 17-19 state team blue; what about states's rights and fed overreach?
:{:{}:
}:
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-administration-collision-course-california-over-vehicle-emissions-rules
Trump administration on Aug. 2 formally announced a proposal to freeze fuel economy standards and tailpipe emission standards for new cars. In addition, it is proposing to revoke California’s authority to set more stringent rules.
This move by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, while expected for months, is the most significant action yet in rolling back efforts by the Obama administration and California to cut greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up an unprecedented legal battle between California and the federal government while breaking with decades of practice on regulating tailpipe pollution.
In fact, only hours after the announcement California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has indicated he intends to file a lawsuit in conjunction with 19 other state attorneys general to challenge the proposal.
Taking aim at California’s waiver...
==
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/heres-how-californias-attorney-general-leading-nationwide-resistance-trump-civil
with the Republican Party controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, the GOP has been exerting near-total control of public policy in Washington, DC. The courts, however, have provided a far more competitive playing field for Democrats seeking to resist the administration.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has been at the forefront of the legal resistance.
Becerra, a Democrat with a law degree from Stanford, spent more than two decades in Congress and chaired the House Democratic Caucus for his final two terms. When then-Attorney General Kamala Harris was elected to the Senate in 2016, Becerra was nominated Attorney General by Governor Jerry Brown, himself a former AG of the state.
On Friday, the Los Angeles Times published a multi-media story on the “battlefronts” as the AG “is waging war against Trump.”
“California has become a flag bearer in the nationwide resistance to Trump administration policies on immigration, the environment, regulation, government ethics and healthcare policy,” the LA Times reported. “The state has filed dozens of lawsuits challenging Trump policies and initiatives, added its voice to the resistance via friend-of-the-court briefs in many other cases, enacted legislation to protect interests its leaders feel have been abandoned by Trump, and implemented administrative policies to protect what Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra calls ‘California values.’”
The section on the environment and public lands shows California as the “winner” on seven different battlefronts.
The legal battlefield also includes healthcare, education, immigration, civil rights and consumer protections. [russia probe]
==
jerry B, pruitt outlaw sue cafe ca 15-0
==
ref no lnx
California has become a flag bearer in the nationwide resistance to Trump administration policies on immigration, the environment, regulation, government ethics and healthcare policy.The state has filed dozens of lawsuits challenging Trump policies and initiatives, added its voice to the resistance via friend-of-the-court briefs in many other cases, enacted legislation to protect interests its leaders feel have been abandoned by Trump, and implemented administrative policies to protect what Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra calls “California values.” Here’s a list of many of the most important legal steps Becerra has taken, often in conjunction with other states.
ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC LANDS HEALTHCARE IMMIGRATION & CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION & CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
Environment and public lands
March 31, 2017
Energy-efficiency standards
The lawsuit, brought by California's attorney general and eight other state attorneys general, challenged the Department of Energy's delay in issuing its conservation standard for ceiling fans. Read more
Result: The Department of Energy reversed itself and let the standard go into effect in September 2017.
April 7, 2017
Conflicts of interest
California made 32 separate requests under the Freedom of Information Act for documents related to possible conflicts of interest for then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, and sued when the EPA withheld the documents. Read more
Result: The EPA produced the documents nine months after the lawsuit was filed.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
April 27, 2017
Taxpayer royalties for oil, coal and gas
California and New Mexico sued to stop Interior Secretary Ryan Zinkefrom repealing Obama-era regulations on the royalties that oil, coal and gas companies pay for production on federal lands. At stake in the repeal is a portion of the $82.5 million received by California in royalties and the $470 million received by New Mexico per year. Read more
Result: Case is pending
May. 10, 2017
Coal leasing on public land
The lawsuit challenges Interior's decision to restart coal leasing on public lands while cutting short an environmental review of the program. Read more
Result: Case is pending
June 13, 2017
Energy-efficiency standards
California joined with eight other states to force the Department of Energy to publish energy standards for portable air conditioners and four other products. Read more
Result: In February, a federal judge ordered the Energy Department to put the standards into effect.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
July 5, 2017
Waste Prevention Rule
California joined with 15 other states to force Interior to implement a rule limiting the release of methane from oil and gas operations on public and tribal lands. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Aug. 1, 2017
Ozone-reduction standards
California joined with several other states to force the EPA to impose clean air standards, which EPA wanted to delay for a year. Read more
Result: A federal judged ordered the standards to go into effect in April.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
Aug. 11, 2017
Scott Pruitt
California sued the EPA after the agency failed to produce the required documents detailed in a Freedom of Information Act request filed in April 2017. Read more
Result: The EPA released over 24,000 pages of documents requested by another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by theSierra Club.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
Sep. 11, 2017
Transportation fuel-efficiency standards
California blocked an attempt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to delay penalties for automakers who fail to meet fuel-efficiency standards. Read more
Result: In April, a federal judge ordered the standards to be put into effect immediately.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
Sep. 20, 2017
Greenhouse gas emissions on highways
California joined seven other states to force the Federal Highway Administration to implement rules setting standards for greenhouse gas emissions on highways. Read more
Result: Trump administration announced it would issue the standards a week after the lawsuit was filed.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
Jan. 24, 2018
Fracking regulations
California sued to challenge the Bureau of Land Management’s repeal of regulations governing fracking on federal and Native American tribal lands. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Feb. 6, 2018
Suspension of the Clean Water Rule
California joined 10 other states to block the EPA from delaying a 2015 clean water regulation covering rivers and streams and shrinking the definition of waterways subject to the rule. The change would have heightened impact in California. Read more
Result: Case is pending
April 5, 2018
Methane emmisions
Filed suit along with 15 other Attorneys General against the EPA for failing to reduce methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas operations, as required under federal law. Read more
Result: The suit is awaiting a ruling.
April 10, 2018
Air pollution policy repeal
California sued to block the EPA from repealing the 1995 “once in, always in” rule, which requires air polluters such as oil refineries and chemical plants to take action to permanently reduce emissions. Rescinding the rule would allow polluters to game goverment regulations, the state says. Read more
Result: Case is pending
May. 1, 2018
National vehicle emmision standards
California led a coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia to block the EPA from scrapping the nation's single vehicle emission standard, which is set to go into effect in 2022. Read more
Result: Case is pending
May. 30, 2018
Pesticide safety
California sued to prevent the EPA from suspending the Worker Protection Standard, which requires safety training for agricultural workers handling dangerous pesticides. Read more
Result: The EPA backed down two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, announcing it would implement the standard after all.
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
May. 31, 2018
Air pollution from landfills
California led eight other states in a lawsuit to force the EPA to enforce limits of the greenhouse gas methane at landfills under a 2016 rule. Landfills are the third-largest source of methane. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Healthcare
May. 18, 2017
Affordable Care Act
California led a coalition of 19 states to protect cost-sharing reduction reimbursments to insurers that the Trump administration ended. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Oct. 6, 2017
Access to affordable birth control
California led a court attack against a Trump administration policy allowing employers to refuse to cover birth control. Read more
Result: Preliminary injunction is granted to block the Trump policy. The case is now in appeals court.
April 9, 2018
Texas, et al.
California, with 15 other states, fights a Texas lawsuit that aims to invalidate the Affordable Care Act. California stepped in to defend the law after the Trump administration withdrew and claimed that the ACA is unconstitutional. Read more
Result: Case is pending, but California was allowed to join the suit
Immigration and Civil Rights
March 13, 2017
Muslim travel ban
California fought Trump's Muslim travel ban in several courts and at several judicial levels, including via a "friend-of-the-court" brief in support of a lawsuit by the state of Hawaii aimed at stopping the travel ban. Read more
Result: The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the travel ban on June 26
June 29, 2017
Immigration enforcement practices
California filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security for details on an array of immigration enforcement practices. It sued to force DHS to provide the documents. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Aug. 14, 2017
Sanctuary jurisdictions
California sued to block administration efforts to require state and local immigration enforcement as a condition of receiving federal grants for law enforcement. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Sep. 11, 2017
DACA
California sued the Trump administration over its decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and obtained an injunction blocking the move. Read more
Result: A federal judge granted a temporary injunction; case is pending.
Sep. 20, 2017
The U.S.-Mexico border wall
California sued to challenge construction of a border wall in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Read more
Result: A judge ruled the projects can proceed. California is appealing the decision.
March 27, 2018
2020 Census
California sued to challenge the Trump administration’s attempt to add a question about U.S. citizenship.Read more
Result: Case is pending, though a New York federal judge has cleared that state's lawsuit to move ahead
June 26, 2018
Child separation at the U.S. border
California filed suit as part of a coalition of 18 attorneys general challenging the separation of families at the U.S. border. Read more
Result: A California judge ordered all families to be reunited within 30 days in response to a separate lawsuit filed by the ACLU. The states' case is pending.
Education and consumer protections
June 14, 2017
Borrower Defense Rule
California filed a motion to defend the loan-forgiveness process for students defrauded by their schools after the Department of Education announced plans to overhaul the rule. The department eventually cut back forgiveness. Read more
Result: Case is pending
Jan. 16, 2018
Net neutrality
California filed suit against the Federal Communications Commission challenging its attempt to repeal net neutrality rules. Read more
Result: Petition to block FCC action was rejected, state Legislature is moving to impose statewide net neutrality rules
WINNER: CALIFORNIA
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-vs-trump-lawsuits/
==
oakland export
https://kpfa.org/episode/talkies-december-26-2017/
tagami said no coal, but was talking to kinder secret?
Bowie co
rich lawyers 20 min in; gorsuch and __ want to reverse commerce clause/interstate commerce b/c of pipelines?!
amicus by becerra, cbd, cbe
vs earth justice; could be summary judgment w/o trial jan 10 2018
==
http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-exxon-investigation-more-urgent-and-more-justified-ever
Why the Exxon Investigation Is More Urgent and More Justified Than Ever
"Exxon may still be in the midst of perpetrating an ongoing fraudulent scheme on investors and the public."
By Carroll Muffett / AlterNet July 19, 2017, 11:30 PM GMT
Over the last two years, reporting by theLos Angeles Times, theCenter for International Environmental Law and others has exposed that Exxon and other oil companies have known about climate change and its potentially catastrophic impacts for at least sixty years.
Instead of sounding the alarm and reducing those risks in their products and practices, oil companies spent decades sowing doubt and denial about climate science—deploying the same tools and tactics that saw Big Tobacco indicted on federal racketeering charges. There is now mounting evidence that Exxon misled not only consumers but also its own investors about the risk of climate change—through advertisements, studies, op-eds, conferences and corporate disclosures.
Follow
CIEL @ciel_tweets
#Fossilfuel companies funded #climate skepticism DECADES earlier than previously thought https://vimeo.com/user50953561/smokeandfumes … #SmokeAndFumes #ExxonKnew
9:15 AM - 13 Apr 2016
Photo published for Smoke And Fumes: An Introduction to the Deep History of Oil and Climate Change
Smoke And Fumes: An Introduction to the Deep History of Oil and Climate Change
This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate…
vimeo.com
As part of his ongoing investigation into Exxon’s climate deception, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently warned of the "urgent" need for further disclosures due to evidence that "Exxon may still be in the midst of perpetrating an ongoing fraudulent scheme on investors and the public." Evidence from more than two million pages of internal Exxon documents indicates that Exxon intentionally underestimated the costs of climate change regulations for years, even as it assured investors it was carefully accounting for climate risks. By publicly proclaiming a higher cost of carbon while actually using a much lower one—or in some instances none at all—the company released valuations and profit projections that made it more attractive to investors than its own calculations justified.
In one noteworthy example cited by the New York AG, Exxon executives pressured staff to apply a far lower cost of carbon to the company's Canadian tar sands assets than it publicly reported. Internal documents acknowledged that Exxon's tar sands investments would not be profitable if the higher cost were applied. This misstatement takes on even greater significance in light of Exxon's multibillion dollar write-down of those same assets in February.
Exxon has a long history of putting profits first and using concealment, deception and intimidation to get away with it. The true breakthrough of recent revelations lies in evidence that this pattern of misleading investors was recognized and approved at the highest levels of the company—all the way up to the then-CEO, our Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
This isn't smoke. This is a smoking gun.
More attorneys general are taking notice. The new California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said last week at a town hall in Pasadena that he is "very aware" of the "concern that Exxon along with other petroleum companies have been misrepresenting how much they've known about climate change for quite some time." He went on to say that when companies like Exxon "present one face to the public and one face to their investors," then "they may be committing certain crimes."...
==
Xavier Becerra (/hɑːviˈɛər bᵻˈsɛrə/ hah-vee-**air; born January 26, 1958) is an American politician serving as the current Attorney General of California. Prior to becoming Attorney General, he was a member of the United States House of Representatives for California's 34th congressional district, who represented Downtown Los Angeles in Congress from 1993 to 2017. Becerra, a member of the Democratic Party, was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Born in Sacramento, California, Becerra is a graduate of Stanford University, receiving his J.D. from Stanford Law School. He worked as a Lawyer at the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts, before returning to California in 1986 to work as an Administrative Assistant for State Senator Art Torres. He served as a Deputy Attorney General in the California Department of Justice from 1987 to 1990 before he was elected to the California State Assembly, where he served one term from 1990 to 1992.
Becerra was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992, previously representing California's 34th congressional district from 1993 to 2003 and California's 31st congressional district from 2003 to 2013. During his tenure in the House, he has served as Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus from 1997 to 1999, Vice Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus from 2009 to 2013, and was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.
Contents
[hide]
- 1Early life, education and law career
- 2Early political career
- 3U.S. House of Representatives
- 4Other political ambitions
- 5California Attorney General
- 6Personal life
- 7References
- 8External links
Early life, education and law career
Born in Sacramento, California, Becerra is the son of working-class immigrants who immigrated from Jalisco, Mexico.[1] As a young child Becerra grew up in a one-room house with his three sisters.[2] He graduated in 1976 from C.K. McClatchy High School, located in central city Sacramento.[3] He attended the University of Salamanca in Salamanca, Spain from 1978 to 1979, before earning his B.A. in Economics from Stanford University in 1980, becoming the first person in his family to graduate from college.[4][5] He received his Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School in 1984 and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1985.[6] He was initially a lawyer, working on cases involving individuals who had mental disorders for the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts.[7]
Early political career
Becerra worked as an Administrative Assistant for California State Senator Art Torres in 1986.[8] He served a Deputy Attorney-General in the California Department of Justice under Attorney General John Van de Kamp from 1987 to 1990.[9]
After incumbent State Assemblyman Charles Calderon decided to seek a seat in the California Senate, Becerra launched a grassroots campaign for the California State Assembly, defeating Calderon's Senate aide Marta Maestas in the Democratic primary.[10] He later went on to beat Republican Lee Lieberg and Libertarian Steven Pencall, receiving 60% of the vote.[11] Becerra served one term in the State Assembly, representing California's 59th district, from 1990 to 1992.[12]
U.S. House of Representatives
Elections
In 1992, 25th District Congressman Edward Roybal announced his retirement after 30 years in Congress. Becerra entered the race for the seat, which had been renumbered as the 30th District after redistricting.
He won the Democratic primary with a plurality of 32% of the vote.[13] In the general election, he defeated Republican nominee Morry Waksberg 58%–24%.[14]
In 1994, he won re-election to a second term with 66%,[15] the lowest re-election winning percentage of his career. After, he never won re-election with less than 72%. His district was renumbered as the 31st District after the 2000 census.
After redistricting, ahead of the 2012 elections, most of Becerra's old district became the 34th District. Becerra announced he would run there; it includes his home.[16] He defeated Republican Stephen Smith 85.6% to 14.4%.
Tenure
Becerra was a prominent member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, of which he served as chairman during the 105th Congress.[17] He was featured on The Colbert Report's Better Know a District on August 17, 2006.[18]
On September 29, 2008 Becerra voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 because he "wanted to see direct protections for responsible homeowners" in the bill.[19]
Becerra considered running for Democratic Caucus Vice Chair for the 110th Congress; however, he deferred to John Larson when DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel decided to run for Caucus Chair, the position Larson had been running for. Instead, Becerra was appointed assistant to the Speaker of the House for the 110th Congress.
Before the opening of the 111th Congress, Emanuel accepted a position as White House Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration. Larson succeeded Emanuel as caucus chair, and Becerra won his bid to succeed Larson as Vice-Chair. He defeated Marcy Kaptur of Ohio by a vote of 175–67.[20]
In 2011, Becerra successfully ran for a second-term as Vice-Chair to serve during the 112th Congress.
During the 111th Congress and 112th Congress, Becerra served on several high-profile committees. On March 24, 2010 Becerra was appointed to serve on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (often called Bowles-Simpson/Simpson-Bowles). On August 11, 2011 Becerra was selected to serve on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the Super Committee). And on December 23, 2011 Becerra was appointed to serve on a bicameral conference committee to find bipartisan solutions on the middle class tax cuts, unemployment insurance, and the Medicare physician payment rate.
Taxes
Becerra consistently expressed opposition to Social Security and Medicare cuts and tax provisions seen to benefit outsourcers.[21] He argued against the Job Protection Act and Recession Prevention Act of 2012 which would extend certain tax provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003 under G.W. Bush, on which Becerra voted against despite it passing through the House.[22] He consistently voted against budget plans that would protect tax cuts for higher income brackets by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and certain federal services.[23] He supported legislation like the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
Immigration
Immigration is a pertinent issue for Becerra because of its proximity to the border and the large number of undocumented immigrants in California. Becerra was a strong supporter of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform.[24] Becerra supported the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program put in place by President Obama.[25]
Women's issues
Becerra is pro-choice and supports the right of access to abortion.[26] On May 31, 2012, Becerra voted against H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which would have imposed civil and criminal penalties on anyone knowingly attempting to perform a sex-selective abortion. The bill also would have required healthcare providers to report known or suspected violations to law enforcement, including suspicions about a woman's motives for seeking an abortion.[27]Becerra received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2012.[28][29] Becerra voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which made the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination reset with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action.[30][31]
Committee assignments
Caucus memberships
- Congressional Hispanic Caucus (Former Chair)
- Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
- Congressional Progressive Caucus
Party leadership
Becerra considered running for Democratic Caucus Vice Chair for the 110th Congress; however, he deferred to John Larson when Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Rahm Emanuel decided to run for Caucus Chair, the position Larson had been running for. Instead, Becerra was appointed assistant to the Speaker of the House for the 110th Congress.
Before the opening of the 111th Congress, Emanuel accepted a position as White House Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration. Larson succeeded Emanuel as caucus chair, and Becerra won his bid to succeed Larson as Vice-Chair. He defeated Marcy Kaptur of Ohio by a vote of 175–67.[32]
In 2011, Becerra won a second-term as Vice-Chair to serve during the 112th Congress. During the 111th Congress and 112th Congress, Becerra served on several high-profile committees. On March 24, 2010 Becerra was appointed to serve on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (often called Bowles-Simpson/Simpson-Bowles). On August 11, 2011 Becerra was selected to serve on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the Super Committee). And on December 23, 2011 Becerra was appointed to serve on a bicameral conference committee to find bipartisan solutions on the middle class tax cuts, unemployment insurance, and the Medicare physician payment rate.
Other political ambitions
2001 run for L.A. Mayor
Becerra ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 2001. He finished with 6 percent of the primary vote, finishing behind businessman Steve Soboroff, Councilman Joel Wachs, former California State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, and the eventual winner, then-City Attorney James Hahn.
Obama administration
On January 27, 2008, Becerra endorsed U.S. Senator Barack Obama for President.[33]
Becerra was considered for the position of US Trade Representative in the administration of President-elect Obama. While it was reported that he had already accepted,[34] on December 15, 2008, he announced that he would not accept the position.[35]
California Attorney General
On December 1, 2016, Becerra accepted Governor Jerry Brown's offer to make Becerra the Attorney General of California. On January 23, 2017, the California Legislature confirmed Becerra to the post. He succeeded Kamala Harris, who was elected to the United States Senate.[36]
On January 24, 2017, Becerra was sworn in as the Attorney General of California, becoming the first Latino to serve as Attorney General.[37]
Personal life
Becerra is married to physician Carolina Reyes[38] and has three children. He owns a home in Chevy Chase, Maryland where he, his wife and three children reside when Congress is in session.[39] He has a home in his district in Los Angeles, California.
==
Want to toss out pollution-fighting rules? You’ll have to face California first.
The sunshine state is ready to fight for its auto emissions standards.
http://grist.org/article/want-to-toss-out-pollution-fighting-rules-youll-have-to-face-california-first/
... quick history lesson: When legislators wrote the 1963 Clean Air Act, they acknowledged that California already had pollution-fighting rules, and that its environmental situation was especially dire. So they gave the state the right to write its own, stricter standards.
“It’s hard to overstate how important the ability for California to set its standards has been to public health and clean air over the past 40 years,” says Don Anair, deputy director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Time and again, California’s been willing and able to move forward.”
From unleaded gasoline to catalytic converters to counting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle standards, the Golden State has played a key role. That’s because, as Therese Langer, transportation program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, puts it, “California doesn’t just mean California.” Even though California is the only state that can write its own rules, under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, any state looking for more than the federal package of regulations can opt to follow California’s auto standards.
Today, 13 (mostly northeastern) states and Washington, D.C., have adopted California’s extra-stringent emissions standards. Nine states also follow Cali’s mandate that automakers sell zero-emission vehicles. Together, they account for nearly 30 percent of new car sales in the country — and no carmaker wants to build “California cars” and “rest of the world cars.” Result: “All cars meet the California standard,” says Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book.
But if American carmakers are good at anything, it’s complaining about regulations that demand it produce cleaner, more efficient cars. The anti-regulation, climate change–doubting Trump administration seems to sympathize. But California’s waiver makes it hard for the feds to weaken anything. Trump’s team could have the EPA review the standards that govern cars through 2025, standards the agency finalized just a week before Obama left office. It would take years, likely face a legal challenge, and would require the EPA prove all the scientific data supporting its original decision is no longer valid.
And even if the EPA won, the California exemption would still hold, and carmakers would still have to make cars that met it. So you can see why the Golden State is a key target. The New York Times reports: “Automakers are also hopeful that the new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, will begin legal action to revoke California’s ability to enforce its tailpipe standards.” Asked in his Senate confirmation hearing if he would leave the waiver process alone, Pruitt said, “I don’t know without going through the process to determine that. One would not want to presume the outcome.”
Good news for environmental cheerleaders: Stripping California of its special status would require a change to the Clean Air Act — the kind of legislating a Democratic filibuster could derail.
But, you say, the EPA doesn’t have to kill the waiver process if it just refuses to issue any new ones. It might even have the legal right to rescind already granted waivers. But California can fight back — and it’s got a stocked arsenal.
“The statute is very clear. It says EPA shall grant the waiver,” says Cara Horowitz, co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. The EPA can only hit the reject button if it can prove a requested rule is weaker than the federal standards, isn’t consistent with the Clean Air Act, or “does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” Through the 1990s, Los Angeles smog conditions were severe enough to cancel after-school sports and flood emergency rooms — compelling and extraordinary. Today, the motivating threat is climate change.
All that matters, because if Scott Pruitt’s EPA starts rejecting new waivers or revoking old ones, California can mount a legal challenge. “I have no doubt that California would litigate, would sue EPA,” says Horowitz. Indeed, Gov. Jerry Brown pledged his state would defend its environmental and social programs. “California is not turning back,” he said in a January speech. “Not now, not ever.”
What if Trump does start rolling back standards? “We’ll see them in court,” says Roland Hwang, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s energy and transportation program.
California has on its side decades of legal precedent built from technical analysis. The EPA has outright rejected just one waiver out of nearly 100. That was in 2007, when the state wanted to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. The EPA said nope, the auto industry celebrated, and California prepared a lawsuit, but the Obama Administration swept in before the case played out. In May 2009, President Obama announced a settlement of sorts: the EPA — not just California — would include GHGs in new standards, and the (recently bailed out) auto industry would deliver cleaner cars.
With a new face in the White House, the auto industry seems willing to renege on that peace treaty. And California seems ready to go to war.
==