Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory jurisdiction over public utilities, including electrical corporations.

This bill would require each electrical corporation to provide distribution planning data, as defined, to development project applicants, energizing entities, as defined, and public entities in a timely and efficient manner. The bill would require the PUC to require each electrical corporation to develop and make publicly available uniform technical standards and requirements for the energization of electrical load on the distribution system and information about its distribution system interconnection queue necessary for the energization of electrical load. The bill would require each electrical corporation that has filed a wholesale distribution tariff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to offer service under that tariff to the state, an agency, authority, or instrumentality of the state, or a political subdivision to transmit electricity that those public entities consume or sell directly to an ultimate consumer, as provided.

Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime.

Because a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory jurisdiction over public utilities, including electrical and gas corporations.

This bill would require the commission to require each electrical corporation to make distribution data and provide distribution planning standards available data, as defined, to development project applicants, interconnecting energizing entities, as defined, and public entities in a timely and efficient manner. The bill would require the commission PUC to require each electrical corporation to develop and make publicly available uniform technical standards and requirements for the energization of electrical load on the distribution system and information about its distribution system interconnection queue necessary for the interconnection of generation and energization of electrical load. The bill would require each electrical corporation that has filed a wholesale distribution tariff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to offer service under that tariff to the state, an agency, authority, or instrumentality of the state, or a political subdivision to transmit electricity that those public entities consume or sell directly to an ultimate customer, at the voltage requested by those public entities. consumer, as provided.

Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission PUC is a crime.

Because certain provisions of this bill would be part of the Public Utilities Act and a violation of a commission PUC action implementing certain provisions of the bill would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory jurisdiction over public utilities, including electrical and gas corporations.

This bill would require the commission to require each electrical corporation to make distribution data and distribution planning standards available to development project applicants, interconnecting entities, and public entities in a timely and efficient manner. The bill would require the commission to require each electrical corporation to develop and make publicly available information about its distribution system interconnection queue necessary for the interconnection of generation and electrical load. The bill would require each electrical corporation that has filed a wholesale distribution tariff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to offer service under that tariff to the state, an agency, authority, or instrumentality of the state, or a political subdivision to transmit electricity that those public entities consume or sell directly to an ultimate customer, at the voltage requested by those public entities.

The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act imposes various requirements on the state and any county, city, body politic, or public agency, and prime contractors and subcontractors, as defined, relating to the solicitation and acceptance of bids for construction on a public work or improvement. The act requires a bid to include specified information relating to the contractors to perform work under that bid, imposes limitations on the substitution, assignment, or sublet of subcontractors once a bid has been accepted, creates a process for addressing clerical errors in a submitted bid that requires, among other things, that the affected contractors submit affidavits under penalty of perjury, and imposes requirements on prime contractors and subcontractors relating to payment bonds. The Act act imposes various penalties for the violation of these provisions.

This bill would impose the above-described requirements on electrical corporations or gas corporations, defined as investor-owned utilities, prime contractors, and subcontractors relating to the solicitation and acceptance of bids for a project of an investor-owned utility when the expenditure for a project exceeds $10,000. $10,000, the project is undertaken in California, and the investor-owned utility intends to contract out the project. The bill would require an investor-owned utility to solicit bids in writing and award the work to the lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids. The bill would also require an investor-owned utility to specify various requirements relating to the payment of a prevailing wage, apprenticeship training, payment bonds, and a grievance process. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require an investor-owned utility to require its contractors and subcontractors to use a skilled and trained workforce to perform work on projects for the production, generation, transmission, distribution, or storage of energy. The bill would require the commission to require investor-owned utilities to obtain certain reports from their contractors, bidders, or other entities and to transmit those reports to the commission.

This bill would prohibit an investor-owned utility from requiring a contractor to enter into, or not enter into, a collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization as a condition for bidding on any contracting work, entering into a contract with, or performing any contracting work for, the investor-owned utility, unless the agreement is a multicraft project labor agreement and certain requirements are met.

Existing law defines the term public works for the purposes of various requirements relating to wages, working hours, and workers compensation for work performed on a public works project. Existing law specifies that the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work on the electric transmission system located in California is a public works project. Existing law defines the term awarding body for this purpose to mean a department, board, authority, officer, or agent award awarding a contract for public work. Existing law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, be paid to workers employed on public works projects. Existing law makes a willful violation of laws relating to the payment of prevailing wages on public works a misdemeanor.

This bill would expand the definition of awarding body to include an investor-owned utility. The bill would expand the definition of public works by including the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done in California under contract and paid for in whole or in part by an investor-owned utility. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires a direct contractor that is awarded a public works contract involving an expenditure in excess of $25,000 to, before commencement of work, give a payment bond to and approved by the officer or public entity by whom the contract was awarded.

This bill would specify that a public entity includes an investor-owned utility and that a project contracted by an investor-owned utility is a public works contract for purposes of this requirement.

Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.

Because certain provisions of this bill would be part of the Public Utilities Act and a violation of a commission action implementing certain provisions of the bill would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires a person who owns a vending machine to affix to the machine their name and address, as specified. If the person owns more than one vending machine located at the same place, existing law instead authorizes the person to post a clearly readable sign containing their name and address in a conspicuous location near the machines. Existing law makes a violation of those provisions a crime.

This bill would require a person to post their telephone number, email address, or both, on the machine or in a conspicuous location, as may be appropriate. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not a crime.

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

Cottie Petrie-Norris, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 284

Author:(Wiener) – As Amended Ver:June 20, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 25-1

SUBJECT: Electricity: energization transparency and efficiency: wholesale distribution service

SUMMARY: Requires electrical corporations (investor-owned utilities, IOUs) to both make any and all distribution planning data publicly available, and to offer service under the federal Wholesale Distribution Tariff (WDT) at secondary voltage to serve customers of the state or any political subdivision at retail. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires IOUs to provide distribution planning data – inclusive of all models, underlying load, retail and wholesale load, storage, facility data, detailed physical maps, and capacity projects, among other items – to development project applicants, energizing entities, and public entities in a timely and efficient manner.
2. Directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to require IOUs to develop and make publicly available uniform technical standards and requirements (unspecified) for energization of electrical load on the distribution system, and to make publicly available information about distribution interconnection queues.
3. Requires each IOU that has filed a WDT at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to offer service under that tariff to the State of California, or any political subdivision or instrumentality of the state, in order to transmit electricity that those public entities sell directly to an ultimate consumer or consume themselves. Requires that the service be offered over all distribution facilities of the IOU, and that an IOU cannot refuse to install any distribution facilities necessary to transmit electricity directly to the ultimate consumer.
4. Provides various findings relating to data sharing and promoting competition, defines relevant terms, and makes the provisions of the bill severable.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with jurisdiction over all public utilities in the state. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Establishes that FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. Also establishes the process and procedures for establishing transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities, i.e., the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission by public utilities. (Federal Power Act §§§ 201, 205, 206 (16 USC 824, 824d, 824e))
3. Establishes that FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over sales of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce by public utilities, i.e., the rates, terms, and conditions of wholesale electric sales by public utilities (Federal Power Act §§§ 201, 205, 206 (16 USC 824, 824d, 824e))
4. Prohibits mandatory retail wheeling and sham wholesale transactions, where an entity financially trades electricity and obtains wheeling services without actually owning any facilities that distribute the electricity, from FERC rules. (Federal Power Act § 212 (h))
5. Provides two exceptions to the FERC prohibition on retail wheeling. The first is that the entity is a specified political subdivision of the state or federal government; the second is that the entity was either providing electric service at retail prior to October 24, 1992 or would utilize transmission or distribution facilities that it owns or controls. (16 USC § 824k(h))
6. Establishes and vests the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), with jurisdiction over all public utilities in the state. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
7. Defines “energization” and “energize” to mean connecting customers to the electrical distribution grid and establishing adequate electrical distribution capacity or upgrading electrical distribution or transmission capacity to provide electrical service for a new customer, or to provide upgraded electrical service to an existing customer. Explicitly excludes activities related to connecting electrical supply resources. (Public Utilities Code § 931)
8. Requires the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods for connecting customers, to determine criteria for timely service, and establish various reporting requirements of the IOUs. (Public Utilities Code §§ 930-939.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been significantly amended since passage in the Senate; this version of the measure is keyed fiscal, and will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations for its review.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Senate Bill 284 helps resolve systemic delays to the energization of customers served by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) by requiring investor-owned utilities (IOUs) with a wholesale distribution tariff to offer service to eligible publicly-owned utilities per the terms of such tariff without engaging in anticompetitive practices. Since 2018, these delays have affected 166 projects including over 2,000 units of affordable housing. The bill also requires IOUs to improve transparency for distribution planning, data, technical standards, and interconnection and energization queues.”
2. State Intervention in a Federal Dispute. The second article of this bill, though broadly written to include all IOU territories and all government entities therein, has its origins and motivations from a longstanding dispute between Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and the City and County of San Francisco (SF). This dispute has persisted for decades, with FERC adjudicating various cases, the cases being appealed in federal courts, the courts remanding actions back to FERC, and so on. The core issue is SF’s utilization of PG&E grid services through a WDT subject to FERC jurisdiction. The latest iteration of this long-simmering dispute is a trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, currently on remand since January 2024 following FERC’s review of previous orders.^[1] This bill asks the Legislature to adjudicate the dispute in favor of SF. The appropriateness of such a legislative intervention – regardless of the merits – in a federal dispute is unclear. Moreover, it is uncertain whether such an action of the Legislature would be preempted federally, once FERC issues an order or the Courts of Appeal offer their ruling.
3. Prohibition of FERC orders of Retail Wheeling and Sham Transactions. The Federal Power Act (FPA) § 212(h)(1) precludes FERC from issuing any order under the FPA that requires the transmission of energy directly to an ultimate consumer (direct retail wheeling). Section 212(h)(2) prohibits sham transactions that are intended to evade the ban on direct retail wheeling. The FPA § 212(h)(2) "sham" prohibition precludes FERC from issuing any order under the FPA that is conditioned upon or requires the transmission of electric energy to, or for the benefit of, an entity if such electric energy would be sold by that entity directly to an ultimate consumer, unless certain conditions are met.

First, the entity must fall into one of the following categories. It must be a Federal power marketing agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a State or any political subdivision of a State, a corporation or association that has ever received a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration for purposes of providing electric service, a person having an obligation arising under State or local law to provide electric service to the public, or any corporation or association wholly owned by one of the foregoing. In addition, the entity seeking transmission must also meet one of two criteria: 1) It was providing electric service to the ultimate consumer on October 24, 1992, or 2) it would utilize transmission or distribution facilities that it owns or controls to deliver all such electric energy to the electric consumer.

As noted in a 1997 legal analysis of FERC Open Access Rules, “It is clear in the legislative history of the FPA that the fundamental goal of the "sham" prohibition is to preclude a wholesale sale that is actually a subterfuge intended to circumvent the ban on the Commission's ability to order retail wheeling directly to an end user. In particular, Congress was concerned that retail customers would create paper intermediaries that could obtain wholesale wheeling and thereby pirate retail customers whom the wheeling utility has a legal obligation to serve. The FPA and its legislative history make clear that state law determines retail marketing areas of electric utilities and that neither the newly amended §§ 211 and 212, nor any other provision of the FPA is to interfere with this state decision. This is also enforced in § 212(g) of the FPA, which precludes the Commission from issuing any order that is inconsistent with State laws governing retail marketing areas.”^[2]

1. SF vs. PG&E. The SF-PG&E dispute centers around the level of service SF is entitled to receive under PG&E’s Tariff and SF’s grandfathering under FPA §212, noted above. SF and PG&E have disagreed about the extent to which PG&E’s FERC-jurisdictional WDT permits SF to continue to receive service without having to own or control intervening distribution facilities between PG&E’s facilities and SF’s end-use customers. (What is known as primary [transmission] versus secondary [distribution] voltage.) As noted in FERC’s recent brief in the Federal Court of Appeal (acronyms used for brevity where appropriate) case on the matter:

“SF ‘does not have its own comprehensive…system to serve’ its customers; therefore, since 1945 it has ‘purchased wholesale…services under a series of interconnection agreements with PG&E.’ The 1987 Interconnection Agreement, the most recent of these agreements, governed interconnection of PG&E and SF’s systems to serve SF’s customers. Under the 1987 Interconnection Agreement, PG&E provided service to SF’s customers without SF having to own or control distribution facilities at each point of delivery. The 1987 Interconnection Agreement expired in July 2015.

While the 1987 Interconnection Agreement between PG&E and SF was in effect, FERC approved a settlement that amended the Tariff, including a Tariff provision at issue here [at the Court of Appeal]. As explained by this Court, PG&E Tariff requires customers to demonstrate ownership or control of distribution facilities except where a customer meets the §824k FPA criteria for grandfathering.

In October 2014, SF filed a complaint against PG&E alleging that, upon expiration of the 1987 Interconnection Agreement, PG&E would unreasonably deny service to SF under the Tariff. In December 2014, PG&E filed the Replacement Agreements to continue to provide service to SF. In the 2019 and 2020 Orders, FERC denied SF’s complaint and approved PG&E’s Replacement Agreements. FERC concluded that SF had not shown, based on the record, that PG&E would unreasonably deny service upon expiration of the 1987 Interconnection Agreement and concluded that PG&E’s Replacement Agreements were appropriate. … [Specifically] FERC concluded that PG&E’s ‘point of delivery approach to determining which SF customers qualify for service under the [Tariff]’ was appropriate.

SF appealed the 2019 and 2020 Orders. This Court rejected FERC’s reasoning…the Court found the [FERC] orders arbitrary and capricious. In October 2022, FERC issued the Remand Order [finding in favor of SF]. PG&E sought rehearing. In March 2023, FERC denied rehearing… and declined to overturn its [decision]. In the Remand Order, FERC found that PG&E must extend Tariff service to: (1) all end-use customers served by SF as of October 24, 1992, and (2) all customers that belong to that same class of customers, even at points of service that were initiated after October 24, 1992.”

FERC concluded the brief requesting the Court deny PG&E’s petitions for review.

1. Far Reaching Implications. This bill not only asks the Legislature to settle this longstanding dispute between SF and PG&E, but it expands the eligibility under the FERC WDT to the State of California or any instrumentality of the state or political subdivision. It is unclear to committee how such an expansion is permissible under the Federal Powers Act, except perhaps under a liberal interpretation that these provisions amend state law governing retail markets, even if they do so through a wholesale federal tariff. If the expansion permitted under this bill is not federally preempted, the opposition raises concerns that this bill could permit similar SF-PG&E relationships statewide. They note that the bill would “encourage sham wholesale electric transactions, where municipal utilities ‘offer’ electric services to customers but rely exclusively upon the IOUs to build and operate the facilities necessary to serve retail municipal customers.” This option might be available to municipal utilities, joint powers authorities, or community choice aggregators. The concern with allowing such relationships to emerge is that receiving power at wholesale (on paper) may allow transactions where these entities avoid appropriate grid costs.

SF, as sponsor of this bill, notes these statutory changes are necessary due to the historic delays they have experienced from PG&E. They emphasize the bill would “facilitate the timely energization of new development projects [especially affordable housing] while promoting least cost energization.” Despite recent legislative and regulatory work in this space – through the passage of AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) and SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023) – to ensure timely energization, SF notes those efforts are too narrow, focused on retail, not wholesale issues. The first article in this bill, however, which seeks more information on distribution planning, is likely too broad in its scope. It requires the IOUs to provide all manner of grid data to whomever seeks it. Given security concerns present around such critical infrastructure, like the Metcalf substation attack in 2013, caution should be exercised. The author acknowledges the broad nature of many of the provisions of the bill, and has indicated an openness to keeping the topic specific to SF-PG&E. However, as noted above, the committee may wish consider the appropriateness of such action.

1. Previous Legislation.

AB 50 (Wood) requires the CPUC, to determine the criteria for customers to receive timely electricity service when requesting new service connections or upgraded service, known as "energization." Proposes several policies to address delays in connecting customers to the electrical grid, including improved information sharing with local governments, reporting by electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs), and other measures. Status: Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023.

SB 410 (Becker) requires the CPUC to establish by September 30, 2024, reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods in order to connect new customers and upgrade the service of existing customers to the electrical grid. This bill also requires reporting by electrical corporations and authorizes specified annual cost-recovery, subject to a cap. Status: Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023.

AB 2700 (McCarty) requires the CEC, in collaboration with CARB and the CPUC, to annually gather from state agencies specified entities’ fleet data on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and share that data with electrical corporations and POUs to help inform electrical grid planning efforts to support the state’s anticipated demand for electric vehicle charging. Status: Chapter 354, Statutes of 2022.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Housing Action Coalition
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – sponsor

Opposition

California State Association of Electrical Workers
Coalition of California Utility Employees
Engineers and Scientists of California, Ifpte Local 20
IBEW
IBEW Local Union 569
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Diego Gas & Electric
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Company
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Line Constructors Chapter, INC.

Analysis Prepared by: Laura Shybut / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083

1. FERC Case # 23-1041 and 23-1127, filed January 30, 2024; Document # 2037998 ↑

2. Pg. 136, Cynthia A. Marlette; “FERC Open Access Transmission Rule and Utility Bypass Cases,” Natural Resources Journal, 125 Vol. 37, Issue 1 (1997). ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 284

Author: Wiener (D)

Introduced: 2/1/23

Vote: 21

SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/27/23

AYES: Roth, Archuleta, Becker, Dodd, Eggman, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Glazer, Niello, Wilk

SUBJECT: Vending machines

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires a person who owns a vending machine to post their telephone number, email address, or both, on a vending machine, as specified, in addition to the requirements under current law to post their name and address.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law specifies that vending machine operators subject to §§ 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or a vending machine operator that voluntarily registers to be subject to the requirements, must provide the following contact information on vending machines selling covered vending machine food: the vending machine operator's name, telephone number, and mailing address or email address. (21 CFR 101.8(e))

Existing state law:

1. Requires every person who owns a vending machine to have their name and address affixed in a place where it may be seen by anyone using the machine. (Business and Professions Code (BPC)§ 17570)
   
2. Makes a violation of 1) above a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months, by a fine of up to $1,000, or by both, for each violation. (BPC § 17572)
3. Requires each vending machine to have a sign indicating the owner’s name, address, and telephone number posted in a prominent place. (Health and Safety Code § 114145)

This bill:

1. Requires that, in addition to posting their name and address, a person who owns a vending machine must also post their telephone number, email address, or both on the machine in a conspicuous location.
2. States that violation of these provisions is not a misdemeanor and that the potential punishments for violation the posting of a name and address does not apply to the provisions of this bill.

Background

A vending machine is classified as a mechanical device, which is operated by the insertion of a coin or item representative of a value of five cents or more in order to dispense a product, service, or exchange of value. In the state of California, all vending machines are required to be constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards for health, safety, and performance set by NSF International (NSF) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). NSF is an independent, international organization, which develops public health standards and provides auditing and certification services. ANSI is a private, non-profit organization, which administers and organizes the United States voluntary standards and conformity assessment system. These two organizations collaborate to produce an annual American National Standard for vending machines (most recent publication: NSF/ANSI 25-2021: Vending Machines for Food and Beverages).

Presently, the only contact information required to be displayed on a vending machine in California is the machine owner’s name and address according to the BPC. However, the Health and Safety Code requires that vending machines display the owner’s name, address, and telephone number. This bill proposes updates to the BPC to require the addition of either the vending machine’s telephone number or an email address (or both) on the vending machine or in a conspicuous location. This bill does not specify whether the owner of the machine must post their professional, personal, or office contact information. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the machine owner regarding which form of contact information should be displayed on the machine.

The proposed changes regarding the listing of owner contact information on vending machines may be useful for vending machine consumers, facility owners, construction or maintenance workers, and others who may wish to contact a vending machine’s owner. However, it is important to note that this bill specifies that failure to list an owner’s email or telephone number on a machine is exempt from classification as a misdemeanor. Therefore, the penalties associated with failure to list a vending machine owner’s name and address do not apply if a machine owner does not list their telephone number or email address.

Comments

This bill does not specify the type of email address or telephone number that must be displayed on a vending machine. Therefore, this language leaves this decision to the discretion of the vending machine owner regarding whether to display an office, professional, or personal telephone number or email address. It may be useful to specify the nature of the machine owner’s telephone number or email address displayed on their respective vending machines, especially regarding a requirement that the telephone number or email address must be active and routinely checked for new messages by the vending machine owner.

The penalty for a violation of current state law regarding the placement of owner contact information on vending machines is classified as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months, by a fine of up to $1,000 or by both. This bill specifies that failure to list the owner’s telephone number or email address is not a criminal offense; therefore, these punishments do not apply if a vending machine owner fails to comply with these new provisions. While this exemption ensures that current vending machine owners are not punished if they cannot immediately update the contact information listed on all of their existing machines, it also provides no impetus for vending machine owners to incorporate updated contact information on existing or new vending machines. The Author may wish to consider a grace period for these new provisions before including them in existing enforcement mechanisms. This allows time for vending machine owners to update contact information on existing machines, while ensuring that both new and existing vending machines all comply with these new provisions.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 3/28/23)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/28/23)

None received

Prepared by: Dana Shaker / B., P. & E.D. /

3/29/23 15:16:40

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Richard Roth, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: March 27, 2023

Subject:

SUMMARY:

Requires a person who owns a vending machine to post their telephone number, email address, or both, on a vending machine, as specified, in addition to the requirements under current law to post their name and address.

Existing Federal Law:

1. Specifies that vending machine operators subject to §§ 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or a vending machine operator that voluntarily registers to be subject to the requirements, must provide the following contact information on vending machines selling covered vending machine food: the vending machine operator's name, telephone number, and mailing address or email address. (21 CFR 101.8(e))

Existing State Law:

1. Requires every person who owns a vending machine to have their name and address affixed in a place where it may be seen by anyone using the machine. (Business and Professions Code (BPC)§ 17570)
   
2. Makes a violation of 1) above a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months, by a fine of up to $1,000, or by both, for each violation. (BPC § 17572)
3. Requires each vending machine to have a sign indicating the owner’s name, address, and telephone number posted in a prominent place. (Health and Safety Code § 114145)

This bill:

1. Requires that, in addition to posting their name and address, a person who owns a vending machine must also post their telephone number, email address, or both on the machine in a conspicuous location.
2. States that violation of these provisions is not a misdemeanor and that the potential punishments for violation the posting of a name and address does not apply to the provisions of this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown. This bill is not keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The Author is the Sponsor of this bill. According to the author, “Existing law does not ensure that individuals who may be utilizing a vending machine (i.e. damage to machine, electronic issues) can report issues adequately to the owner of said vending machine – this bill addresses that by requiring that a telephone or email address (or both) is also posted.”
2. Vending Machine Definitions and Regulatory Standards. A vending machine is classified as a mechanical device, which is operated by the insertion of a coin or item representative of a value of five cents or more in order to dispense a product, service, or exchange of value. In the state of California, all vending machines are required to be constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards for health, safety, and performance set by NSF International (NSF) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). NSF is an independent, international organization, which develops public health standards and provides auditing and certification services. ANSI is a private, non-profit organization, which administers and organizes the United States voluntary standards and conformity assessment system. These two organizations collaborate to produce an annual American National Standard for vending machines (most recent publication: NSF/ANSI 25-2021: Vending Machines for Food and Beverages).
3. Vending Machine Owner Contact Information. Presently, the only contact information required to be displayed on a vending machine in California is the machine owner’s name and address according to the BPC. However, the Health and Safety Code requires that vending machines display the owner’s name, address, and telephone number. This bill proposes updates to the BPC to require the addition of either the vending machine’s telephone number or an email address (or both) on the vending machine or in a conspicuous location. This bill does not specify whether the owner of the machine must post their professional, personal, or office contact information. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the machine owner regarding which form of contact information should be displayed on the machine.

The proposed changes regarding the listing of owner contact information on vending machines may be useful for vending machine consumers, facility owners, construction or maintenance workers, and others who may wish to contact a vending machine’s owner. However, it is important to note that this bill specifies that failure to list an owner’s email or telephone number on a machine is exempt from classification as a misdemeanor. Therefore, the penalties associated with failure to list a vending machine owner’s name and address do not apply if a machine owner does not list their telephone number or email address.

1. Comments.
2. Clarification of required email address or telephone number type. This bill does not specify the type of email address or telephone number that must be displayed on a vending machine. Therefore, this language leaves this decision to the discretion of the vending machine owner regarding whether to display an office, professional, or personal telephone number or email address. It may be useful to specify the nature of the machine owner’s telephone number or email address displayed on their respective vending machines, especially regarding a requirement that the telephone number or email address must be active and routinely checked for new messages by the vending machine owner.
3. Penalty for failure to meet contact information requirements. The penalty for a violation of current state law regarding the placement of owner contact information on vending machines is classified as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months, by a fine of up to $1,000 or by both. This bill specifies that failure to list the owner’s telephone number or email address is not a criminal offense; therefore, these punishments do not apply if a vending machine owner fails to comply with these new provisions. While this exemption ensures that current vending machine owners are not punished if they cannot immediately update the contact information listed on all of their existing machines, it also provides no impetus for vending machine owners to incorporate updated contact information on existing or new vending machines. The Author may wish to consider a grace period for these new provisions before including them in existing enforcement mechanisms. This allows time for vending machine owners to update contact information on existing machines, while ensuring that both new and existing vending machines all comply with these new provisions.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: None received

Opposition: None received

-- END --