南昌市那治幻视好(南昌去失眠的方法) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is willing to throw a financial lifeline to the state's major utilities dealing with the results of disastrous wildfires — but only if they agree to concessions including tying executive compensation to safety performance.A proposal unveiled Friday by Newsom's office aims to stabilize California's investor-owned utilities and protect wildfire victims as the state faces increasingly destructive blazes. Regulators say some previous fires were caused by utility equipment.Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., the largest of the three investor-owned utilities, filed for bankruptcy in January as it faced tens of billions of dollars in potential costs from blazes, including the November fire that killed 85 people in the Paradise area.Newsom hopes to strike a deal with lawmakers in just three weeks, but leaders in the Legislature said they haven't been given a formal legislative proposal and would need to go through their normal review process.The plan comes as credit ratings agencies look wearily upon the utilities.Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric had their ratings downgraded earlier this year, and executives have pushed lawmakers to come up with a plan that stabilizes the industry.Newsom proposal would give Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric the power to decide which form of financial aid they want, based on whether they're willing to make their shareholders contribute.They could choose a liquidity fund to tap to quickly pay out wildfire claims or a larger insurance fund that would pay claims directly to people who lose their homes to fire.The ratings agency Moody's has said creating a sort of insurance or liquidity fund would have a positive impact on the credit of utilities in the state.The liquidity fund would be about .5 billion and paid for by a surcharge on ratepayers, said Ana Matosantos, Newsom's cabinet secretary. If utilities want the larger insurance fund, they'd have to pitch in another .5 billion. Both utilities have to agree on which option to choose. Officials at neither company immediately responded to requests for comment.PG&E would not get a say in which fund the state uses or be able to tap a fund until it resolves its claims from the 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons and emerges from bankruptcy. Its exit plan could not harm ratepayers and it would have to continue the utility's contributions to California's clean energy goals.The utilities would have to implement a number of safety measures to tap into the fund, such as tying executive compensation to safety, forming a safety committee within its board of directors and complying with wildfire mitigation plans.State legislators voted last year to require California's electric companies to adopt those plans. Southern California Edison told legislative staff last year the company wants to spend 2 million to improve power lines and deploy new cameras in high-risk areas.PG&E has said it will inspect 5,500 additional miles of power lines and build 1,300 new weather stations to improve forecasting. Most of its inspections are done, officials said.The state would also require power companies to spend a combined billion on safety over three years. This would include upgrading utility infrastructure as well as developing new early warning and fire detection technologies.Companies would be able to pass on the actual costs of these measures to consumers but could not make a profit off the steps.The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities, would decide how that billion is split up. Newsom's plan would also create a Wildfire Safety Division and Advisory Board at the CPUC.Matosantos described the draft requirements for additional safety spending as unprecedented and argued that mandating companies meet those guidelines to tap into the fund protects electric customers from paying for the costs of a catastrophic wildfire.Still, lawmakers plan to do their own analysis of the proposal."In order for any solution to work, the Legislature and governor will have to work together," Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, a fellow Democrat, said in a statement. 4234

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom broadly agree on a proposed 3 billion state budget that would spend more on immigrants and the poor by expanding tax credits, health care and child care.But they're still debating how far those program expansions should go and how best to pay for them.They're now in the final days of negotiations ahead of a June 15 deadline for lawmakers to approve the budget or stop getting paid.California law requires legislation to be in print for 72 hours before lawmakers take a vote, which means any deal would have to be struck by Wednesday.TAX CREDITNewsom wants to spend roughly 0 million to expand a tax credit program for low-income people with children under the age of 6. The program is known as the earned income tax credit, but Newsom prefers to call it a "cost-of-living refund."His plan would increase the credit to ,000 a year and allow more people to access it. He wants the state to pay it out on a monthly basis, something no state has won federal approval to do.He acknowledged it might not happen this year if California can't win approval from the Trump administration.The Senate and Assembly want to expand the credit even further by allowing people living in the country illegally to claim it. Newsom has suggested that would be too expensive.TAX LAW CHANGESTo pay for a tax credit expansion, Newsom wants California to adopt some of the changes to the federal tax code signed in 2017 by President Donald Trump. California is one of three states that haven't yet conformed.Newsom wants to generate about billion a year through changes that would mostly raise taxes on businesses. Lawmakers have not included the changes in their version of the budget and want to use existing tax dollars to cover the expanded program. State officials have predicted a surplus of .5 billion.Changing the tax code would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and many lawmakers are skittish to approve a tax increase.Newsom tried to ease those concerns by getting the head of the California Taxpayers Association to publicly declare his organization is neutral on the proposal.HEALTH CARE FOR IMMIGRANTSCalifornia Democrats say they want to reduce the state's uninsured rate to zero, a goal that would require opening Medicaid — the joint federal and state health insurance program for the poor and disabled — to people living in the country illegally.Newsom's proposal would do that for adults 19 to 25. The state Senate went a step further and expanded the plan to include people 65 and older.Newsom opposes the Senate plan, saying it puts too much pressure on the general fund.INDIVIDUAL MANDATENewsom wants to spend nearly 0 million to make California the first state to expand subsidies for premiums under the federal health care law to people who make at least six times the U.S. poverty level.That would make a family of four earning up to 0,600 a year eligible for help.To pay for it, Newsom wants to tax people who don't have health insurance.The Senate wants to double Newsom's proposed spending to expand subsidies for people making less than twice the federal poverty limit. They already get help from the federal government and the state Senate's proposal would also give them state dollars.The Senate proposal also calls for keeping the tax on the uninsured, but it does not tie that money to subsidies.HEALTH PROVIDER TAXA health provider tax would affect companies that manage the California Medicaid program. Those companies, called managed care organizations, pay a tax for every person they enroll.The tax could bring the state about .8 billion next year, but it's set to expire June 30.California would need permission from the Trump administration to extend the tax. Newsom is not sure that will happen, so he did not include the money in his budget proposal. The state Senate and Assembly did.DRINKING WATERActivists say more than 1 million Californians don't have clean drinking water.Newsom wants to impose a 95-cent tax on most monthly residential water bills, as well as fees on dairies, animal farms and fertilizer sellers, to help water districts pay for improvements and boost supplies.The Senate has rejected the tax that Newsom estimates would generate 4 million a year. The Senate does want to clean up water systems and would use existing money to do it.The Assembly says lawmakers should delay action until later in the year.DIAPER AND TAMPON TAXNewsom and the Senate want to exempt diapers, tampons and other menstrual hygiene products from the state sales tax for two years. Assembly lawmakers say the tax exemption should last a decade.PAID FAMILY LEAVENewsom and the Senate want to expand paid family leave from six weeks to eight weeks, beginning July 1, 2020. The Assembly did not put the expansion in its budget proposal, preferring to debate the issue later this year. 4911

SACRAMENTO (AP) — California would set a goal of generating 100 percent of the state's energy from carbon-free sources under legislation approved by the state Assembly.The bill approved Tuesday would accelerate California's renewable energy mandate from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. It would then set a goal of phasing out all fossil fuels by 2045, but it does not include a mandate or penalty.Supporters say the measure would help address climate change and boost California's clean energy economy.RELATED: California Energy Commission approves solar panel requirement for new homesCritics say it's unrealistic and would saddle families and businesses with higher energy bills.The measure returns to the Senate which must approve changes made in the Assembly. It was written by Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon, who is challenging fellow Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. 892

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California would become the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts unless customers ask for paper copies under legislation proposed on Tuesday.Many businesses and consumers already are moving toward e-receipts, said Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco.But he said a law still is needed because many consumers don't realize most paper receipts are coated with chemicals prohibited in baby bottles, can't be recycled and can contaminate other recycled paper because of the chemicals known as Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Bisphenol-S (BPS).His bill, AB161, would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically starting in 2022 unless the customer asks for a printed copy.RELATED: City Council votes to ban Styrofoam across San DiegoIt comes days after another first-in-the-nation California law took effect requiring dine-in restaurants to provide drinking straws only at customers' request.The penalties in Ting's bill are modeled on the straw bill, said Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste. It calls for written warnings for the first two violations and a fine of a day for subsequent infractions, with a 0 cap."It's intended to be a pretty light touch in terms of enforcement," Lapis said.Advocates said the use of straws is declining after that law was passed.Many larger stores already offer the choice involving receipts but it is unclear if a mandate would cause a hardship for small and medium-size stores, said California Retailers Association spokeswoman Pamela Williams. Her association and the California Chamber of Commerce have not taken positons on the bill.Ting said businesses can save money by moving away from printed receipts.The advocacy group Green America, which is pushing a "skip the slip" campaign, estimated that millions of trees and billions of gallons of water are used annually to produce paper receipts in the United States.Ting cited studies by the Environmental Working Group and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that retail workers have higher concentrations of BPA or BPS than those who do not have regular contact with receipts.Ting said consumers can still request paper receipts if they are worried about giving out their email addresses for privacy reasons or to avoid having their emails used or sold for marketing purposes. 2382

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A staunchly conservative political party in deep-blue California will get to keep its name after the governor vetoed a bill aimed at banning what state lawmakers say are misleading monikers.Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he had vetoed a bill that would have banned political parties from using "no party preference," ''decline to state" or "independent" in their official names.The bill would have applied to all political parties. But it was aimed at the American Independent Party, which has been an option for California voters since 1968.More California voters are registering with no party preference, now accounting for 28.3% of all registered voters. If "no party preference" were a political party, it would be the second largest in the state behind the Democrats.Critics say the American Independent Party has benefited from this trend because its name confuses voters into believing they are registering as independents. The party makes up 2.59% of California's registered voters, making it the third largest political party in the state after the Democratic Party at 43.1% and the Republican Party at 23.6%.In 2016, the Los Angeles Times surveyed the party's registered members and found most did not know they had registered to vote with the party. But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because he worried it was unconstitutional."By requiring one existing political party to change its current name, this bill could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Newsom wrote in his veto message.Representatives for the American Independent Party did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment. The party's website says it nominated Donald Trump for president in 2016 and "God willing, 2020."Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, the bill's author, warned the mistaken registration could have electoral consequences. People registered with another political party would not be allowed to vote in the state's pivotal Democratic presidential primary in March.But Newsom signed another bill by Umberg that could help people rectify any registration mistakes. The law, signed Tuesday, allows voters to register to vote or update their registration at all polling places on election day.If people show up to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and are ineligible because they are registered with the American Independent Party, they can change their registration on the spot and cast a ballot. The ballot would be conditional, meaning it would not be counted until after the person's registration could be verified. 2676

来源：资阳报