In This Edition:
· Action Alert: AB 2152 – Don't Make Fire Stations More Expensive
· Prop 37
· Changes Coming to the ECU
—
Action Alert: AB 2152 – Don't Make Fire Stations More Expensive
As this newsletter is being published, AB 2152 (Gonzalez) is awaiting action in the Senate Appropriations Committee. If the bill is released from the Suspense File, it will move to the Senate Floor and, because of recent amendments, will also return to the Assembly for concurrence before heading to the Governor for his ‘consideration.’
WECA supports building more fire stations and getting them built faster. Unfortunately, AB 2152 takes a worthwhile idea—expedited judicial review for critical public safety projects—and conditions it on an unrelated labor mandate that will increase costs and reduce competition.
The bill now defines an "essential local fire station project" as the planning, design, property acquisition, construction, or replacement of a fire station by a city, county, or local fire agency. To qualify for expedited judicial review under CEQA, however, the project proponent must:
- Pay approximately $180,000 to the Judicial Council to cover the costs of expedited review; and
- Build the project under a Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
That is an expensive admission ticket.
The average three-bay fire station in California costs $8 million to $12 million to construct, while larger stations can exceed $25 million. Independent research by the RAND Corporation found that projects constructed under Project Labor Agreements can experience construction cost premiums of approximately 15 to 18 percent.
For a typical $10 million fire station, that means a local agency could pay an additional $1.5 million to $1.8 million in construction costs—before paying the bill's $180,000 judicial review fee.
Those costs are not theoretical.
On Sacramento's Fire Station 14 project, five contractors attended the pre-bid conference, but only one submitted a bid—approximately 33 percent above the engineer's estimate. City staff confirmed that several contractors declined to bid because of the PLA requirement.
Similarly, the Cosumnes Community Services District's Fire Station 77 experienced a failed competitive procurement, was ultimately awarded without a traditional bid process, opened approximately one year late, and cost roughly $700,000 more than the engineer's estimate.
Ironically, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee's own analysis concluded that, according to CEQAnet, the overwhelming majority of fire station projects already qualify for CEQA exemptions or proceed under Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations. Only a small number require Environmental Impact Reports, and fewer still are challenged in court.
In other words, AB 2152 asks local governments to pay millions of dollars more for an expedited judicial process that most fire station projects will never need.
California already requires prevailing wages and apprenticeship utilization on public works projects. Local agencies already have the authority to use Project Labor Agreements whenever they believe they are appropriate. They do not need Sacramento conditioning CEQA benefits on one particular labor policy.
The Legislature should be asking one simple question:
If expedited judicial review is good public policy, why should cities, counties, and fire agencies have to buy it by agreeing to a Project Labor Agreement?
Take Action Today
WECA members are encouraged to contact their State Senator immediately.
Ask your Senator to:
Vote NO on AB 2152 unless it is amended to remove the mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirement.
A simple phone call is often the most effective. Here's a script you can use:
"Hello, my name is ________, and I'm a constituent and a member of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. I'm calling to ask Senator ________ to oppose AB 2152 unless the Project Labor Agreement mandate is removed. California already requires prevailing wages and apprenticeship on public works. AB 2152 would force local governments to pay higher construction costs and a $180,000 judicial fee just to qualify for CEQA streamlining. That means fewer fire stations will be built with taxpayer dollars. Please ask the Senator to vote NO unless the PLA requirement is removed, and please inform me how they voted. Thank you." (Not sure what your Senator’s phone number is? Check here and call either the district office or the Capitol.)
With the bill also returning to the Assembly for a concurrence vote if it passes the Senate, every call matters. The issue isn't whether Project Labor Agreements should be available—they already are. The issue is whether access to CEQA streamlining should be conditioned on adopting one particular labor policy.
WECA believes California should make it easier—not more expensive—to build the fire stations our communities need.
—
Proposition 37: No PLA Mandate, but Several Labor Requirements
California Proposition 37 would create a bond-funded second-mortgage program for eligible buyers of newly constructed homes. Although the measure does not contain a blanket project labor agreement mandate, contractors should be aware of several labor provisions embedded in its “qualified builder option.”
Participation in that option is voluntary. Homes do not have to be constructed under the option to qualify for Proposition 37 financing. Builders that opt in receive different—and generally more flexible—construction-defect procedures in exchange for accepting additional labor standards and enforcement obligations.
The measure incorporates selected provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. For buildings over 85 feet, those provisions trigger labor standards found in Government Code Section 65913.4, including prevailing wage, contractor registration and payroll-reporting requirements. Depending on project size, they can also require participation in an approved apprenticeship program, specified healthcare expenditures, monthly compliance reporting and use of a skilled and trained workforce.
Certain projects of 50 or more units in San Francisco would be subject to additional prevailing-wage and related labor standards.
A PLA is mentioned only through these incorporated statutes. In those provisions, a qualifying PLA can substitute for certain payroll, enforcement, or skilled-workforce procedures. It is therefore an optional compliance mechanism—not a requirement to sign a PLA.
Proposition 37 also gives joint labor-management cooperation committees substantial enforcement authority. They may bring actions relating to wage statements, unemployment-insurance obligations, workers’ compensation coverage, contractor licensing and certain other violations. Opting-in builders may be held liable for specified violations committed by their contractors and subcontractors.
One noteworthy limitation is that Proposition 37 does not incorporate Section 21080.66(d)(1), which imposes prevailing wage on projects consisting entirely of lower-income housing. Instead, it selectively incorporates paragraphs (2), applicable portions of (3), and paragraphs (4) and (5).
The bottom line for merit shop contractors: Proposition 37 does not mandate a PLA or union labor. Nevertheless, builders choosing the qualified builder option—and contractors working for them—could face significant prevailing-wage, apprenticeship, healthcare, skilled-workforce, reporting and labor-enforcement requirements depending on the project’s height, size and location.
This article provides a general summary and is not legal advice. Contractors should review the final measure and applicable statutes with counsel when evaluating a particular project.
—
What Goes Around Comes Around: WECA Supports Moving Electrician Certification to CSLB
The August 3 amendments to Assemblymember Laurie Davies’ AB 1707 would make a significant—and welcome—change to California’s Electrician Certification Program.
Contingent upon a legislative appropriation, AB 1707 would transfer responsibility for administering electrician certification and electrician-trainee registration from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), within the Department of Industrial Relations, to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB).
WECA supports the transfer.
The change would place certification administration within the agency that licenses C-10 electrical contractors and already plays a central role in enforcing electrician-certification requirements against those contractors. Bringing these closely related responsibilities together offers an opportunity to improve coordination, accountability, customer service, examination administration, recordkeeping, and enforcement.
The transfer will require careful planning and adequate resources. Preliminary estimates indicate that CSLB could incur one-time transition expenses and ongoing costs exceeding $3 million annually for staffing, examination administration, legal support, information technology, and related program activities. AB 1707 appropriately makes implementation contingent upon a legislative appropriation and provides a substantial transition period. Under the amended bill, the transfer would become operative on the later of July 1, 2028, or the first anniversary of the appropriation.
That schedule should give CSLB, DLSE, lawmakers, and the regulated community time to develop a thoughtful transition plan that protects applicants, certified electricians, trainees, contractors, and approved education providers from disruptions.
An Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come?
For longtime WECA members, the proposal may sound familiar.
Approximately 15 years ago, WECA sponsored legislation that would have transferred the Electrician Certification Program from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards to CSLB. At the time, both the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and CSLB opposed the proposal—but for very different reasons.
The IBEW opposed the move, apparently because the proposal had not originated with the union. CSLB’s objection was more institutional: the board maintained that its responsibility was to regulate contractors, not the workers employed by those contractors.
Both organizations apparently have changed their minds.
There is a certain irony in seeing essentially the same concept return years later with broader institutional acceptance. But good public policy should not be rejected simply because it took the state 15 years to warm up to the idea—or because the idea originally came from WECA.
In fact, events during the intervening years have strengthened the case for the transfer. CSLB already enforces the certification law against C-10 contractors. A C-10 contractor that willfully employs uncertified electricians or fails to provide required supervision may face CSLB disciplinary action. Moving certification administration to CSLB would therefore align the agency maintaining certification and trainee records more closely with the agency responsible for contractor compliance.
Details Still Matter
WECA’s support does not mean the transfer should occur without industry participation and legislative oversight. The transition must be adequately funded, and CSLB must establish systems capable of handling applications, renewals, examinations, trainee registrations, disciplinary matters, and public certification records without interruption.
Contractors, electricians, apprenticeship programs, trainee schools, and other affected parties must also have a meaningful role in implementation. Particular attention should be paid to:
- Timely processing of applications and renewals.
- Reliable transfer of existing certification and trainee records.
- Adequate examination availability throughout California.
- Clear treatment of pending applications during the transition.
- Accessible online services.
- Coordination with apprenticeship and education programs.
- Transparent fees and program expenditures.
- Consistent enforcement and due-process protections.
If properly implemented, transferring the program to CSLB can create a more coordinated and responsive regulatory structure for California’s electrical industry.
WECA thanks Assemblymember Davies for advancing this proposal and will work with the Legislature, CSLB, DLSE, and industry stakeholders to help ensure a successful transition.
Sometimes Sacramento needs a decade or two to recognize a good idea. WECA is pleased to see this one return.
—
Social Security Will Be Depleted by 2032
The Social Security Trustees’ annual report on the program’s outlook shows that the largest component of the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Social Security’s primary trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2032, at which point, benefits for every recipient will be automatically cut by 22 percent, unless reform is enacted. In fact, the depletion date has moved so close that Senators elected in this year’s election will be serving in office when Social Security becomes unable to pay out full benefits.
Here are the key takeaways from today’s report.