May 2023 CAFB Legal Services Division Newsletter

BEWARE OF MISLEADING STATEMENT OF INFORMATION SOLICITATIONS

Like other California nonprofit corporations, county Farm Bureaus must file with the office of the California Secretary of State (“SoS”) a Statement of Information on SoS Form SI-100 every two years. The six-month window period for filing a required Form SI-100 is based on the county Farm Bureau’s month and year of incorporation. The filing fee is $20, and a completed form may be either mailed to the SoS or filed online.

How was I to know that I had to file a Statement of Information? included with these SoS FAQ states the SoS sends to each business entity a reminder to file about three months before the filing due date. An entity that fails to file a Form SI-100 is provided a notice of delinquency and an additional 60 days in which to file.

Your county Farm Bureau might have received (or might receive in the future) a form that at first glance appears to be an official government form such as this example, which states a “Service Process Fee” of $243.

Don’t be fooled! This form and others like it were formatted to trick the unwary into concluding they are mandatory government forms. A careful examination of such a form will likely reveal it includes a legally required disclosure that the product or service being offered has not been approved or endorsed by any governmental agency and that the offer is not being made by such an agency.

For more on this subject, please read the SoS’s post at

sos.ca.gov/business-programs/customer-alerts/misleading-statement-information-solicitations.

Staff contact: Carl Borden, (916) 561-5659 or cborden@cfbf.com

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS PETITION CA SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW AG’s WINS ON THE EAST SAN JOAQUIN WDRs LITIGATION

On March 17, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal issued an important decision regarding water quality regulations for irrigated lands in the Central Valley. The decision rejected all claims brought in the three cases: Protectores Del Agua Subterranea v. State Water Board, Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Board, and Monterey Coastkeeper, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, et al., v. Central Valley Regional Board and State Water Board. The environmental groups originally filed three separate lawsuits in 2018 challenging the State Water Board’s adoption of the revised East San Joaquin Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The revised East San Joaquin Waste Discharge Requirements contain precedential requirements impacting all irrigated lands programs in the state. CAFB and other agricultural groups intervened in the three cases to oppose the challenges raised by the various environmental and environmental justice groups.

On April 26, 2023, two of the three groups, Environmental Law Foundation and Monterey Coastkeeper, filed petitions for review with the CA Supreme Court, asking the court to review and reverse the Court of Appeal’s decisions. CAFB and other agricultural groups filed briefs on May 16, 2023 asking the court to deny the petitions.

Staff contact: Kari Fisher, (916)561-5666 or kfisher@cfbf.com

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS

PROP 12 IN CALIFORNIA

On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation in its challenge of California’s Proposition 12 animal confinement law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upheld previous decisions by lower courts, finding that the proposition did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Proposition 12, approved by California voters in November 2018, establishes specific minimum requirements for confinement of laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves. Proposition 12 also prohibits the sale in California of all products from animals not raised in compliance with the new rules, regardless of their origin.

Staff contact: Kari Fisher, (916)561-5666 or kfisher@cfbf.com

CPUC FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE

PLANNING WEBINAR

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Division’s Transportation Electrification section staff are hosting a public webinar on Monday, May 22 from 2-5 pm to discuss its Freight Infrastructure Planning (FIP) staff proposal. The proposal addresses the need for proactive planning of long lead time utility-side electrical infrastructure (i.e., distribution and transmission) needed to support the acceleration of transportation electrification.

FIP Overview:

Medium (MD) and Heavy Duty (HD) freight charging will trigger long lead time capacity investments (e.g., distribution and/or transmission) that must be identified and initiated before the load materializes to ensure timely energization.

Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation accelerates charging deployment for MD/HD vehicles across California.
Staff anticipates medium and heavy duty (MD/HD) charging load will be large and concentrated along major travel corridors. Freight charging along corridors is linked to in-route business needs and therefore not as flexible nor responsive to rate signals.
The proposed FIP framework focuses on MD/HD freight primarily because their sizeable load will trigger grid upgrades and create some of the greatest grid integration challenges. However, our analysis will take into account other sizable loads, including large light-duty DC fast charging sites.

Given the nascent nature of the zero-emission MD/HD market, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the assumptions used for long-term planning and forecasting. The FIP proposal aims to provide guidance and improve the planning process. Specifically, the FIP proposes to facilitate timely consideration of distribution, substation, and transmission infrastructure upgrades needed for corridor electrification by:

Developing planning scenarios that focus on unique issues associated with freight electrification, e.g., drayage, electrifying domestic/international borders, local reliability, TE-driven transmission, and corridors with limited electrical infrastructure.
Identifying future load and optimal charging zones based on a variety of policy considerations (e.g., air quality, equity/disadvantaged community status, and fire threat districts) and fleet mobility needs.
Recommending improvements to interagency planning/forecasting coordination.
Developing unified TE grid planning inputs and assumptions to inform forecasting/planning.

The webinar will include staff representing the California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, California Transportation Commission, and California Air Resources Board.

Preparation:

Agenda and webinar slides will be made available via the Freight Infrastructure Planning (FIP) section of the CPUC Transportation Electrification website shortly before the event date. Staff are aiming to post the materials by COB 5/11, please check the website then.
During the webinar, there will be opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback. However, comments and questions during this webinar will not be considered as submitted comments and staff will not record them. Stakeholders will need to submit written comments following the instructions provided at the webinar and in the webinar materials. The information discussed and the comments provided by stakeholders either during the webinar or later in writing are not part of any active proceeding.
Stakeholders will have 30 days from the date of this webinar to submit their informal comments to staff. All submitted comments will then be published on the FIP section of the CPUC Transportation Electrification website.
The webinar will be recorded and the recording will be posted on the FIP website.