The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council opposes AB 792 because it encourages abusive litigation by providing incentives for plaintiffs’ attorneys to bring lawsuits on behalf of the state. WCJC further opposes AB 792 because it is unnecessary - existing laws provide meaningful avenues for the state to prosecute those who file false claims.

False claims (also known as qui tam) laws are a favorite tool of plaintiffs’ lawyers to sue, on behalf of the state, companies that allegedly commit fraud by submitting false claims for payment. These laws essentially turn private individuals into bounty hunters for the state, often with multi-million dollar rewards.

AB 792’s companion bill (SB 447) is currently in the Joint Finance Committee.

Assembly Committee on Labor Public Hearing

Wednesday, March 10
10:05 AM
225 Northwest
State Capitol

The bill passed both the Senate and Assembly last year, but was subsequently vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle. A veto override requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly (66) and the Senate (22). The Assembly was only able to garner 58 votes in favor of an override of the Governor’s veto.

Proponents of AB 138, which includes environmental and sportsmen groups, argued that by allowing the Natural Resources Board the authority to appoint the DNR secretary (instead of the Governor) removes the political nature of decision making within the agency.

Opponents of the bill, including Gov. Jim Doyle, current DNR Secretary Matt Frank, and business groups opposed the measure. They argued that removing the DNR secretary from a cabinet level position would leave the DNR unaccountable and would allow unelected bureaucrats to essentially run the massive state agency. Gov. Doyle in his veto message noted that the DNR Secretary is “an integral part of a Governor’s Cabinet, playing a regular and key role in interagency projects,” and that a secretary appointed by the Governor “ensures a direct line of accountability for citizens concerned about the natural resources policy” of this state.

The Senate finished its hearings last week. The biggest news from the Senate hearings last week were statements made by Democrat Senators Jeff Plale (South Milwaukee) and Bob Jauch (Superior) noting their concerns with portions of the bill, in particular the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) provision. An LCFS would essentially restrict the use of oil derived from Canada’s oil sands. Wisconsin currently receives roughly 50 percent of its oil from Canada. An LCFS would also punish ethanol.

Once the hearings conclude, it is expected that legislators may begin paring back controversial provisions to make the bill more likely to pass. What, if anything, is removed remains to be seen.

Hamilton Consulting Regulatory Watch will continue to provide timely updates as the legislation moves forward.

The bill passed (61-32) the Assembly in September 2009, but subsequently was vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle. A veto override requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly (66) and the Senate (22).

Democrats hold a 52-vote majority. Therefore, it will require Republicans to join the Democrats for a successful override. Since supporters of AB 138 were short by five votes the necessary amount to override a veto, it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient votes when the bill is brought up next week.

• Senate and Assembly Begin Hearings on Climate Change Legislation
• Gov. Doyle Gives Final State of the State Address
• Senate Expands Medical Liability
• Assembly Committee Hears Testimony on “Gender-based Harm” Bill
• Bill Extends Statute of Limitations for Intentional Torts; Headed to Governor’s Desk
• Senate Passes Issue Ads Legislation
• U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision Striking Down Campaign Finance Laws
• EPA Proposes Stricter Smog Rules

Today’s hearing is for informational purposes only, meaning that the public is not yet allowed to provide public comments. It will be an opportunity for legislators on the committees to ask questions about the very complex piece of legislation.

To view Hamilton Consulting Regulatory Watch’s analysis of the 174-page bill, please click here.

Below is a schedule of hearings on particular topics within the omnibus legislation: 

• 10:45 a.m., Wed., Jan 20: Informational hearing (Room 412-E).
• 10 a.m., Wed., Jan. 27: Public hearing focusing on: Public Service Commission, industrial energy incentives (412-E).
• 10 a.m., Wed., Feb. 10: Public hearing focusing on: Vehicles; fuels, planning, transportation infrastructure; energy efficient buildings and equipment; bioenergy (412-E).
• 10 a.m., Thu., Feb. 11: Public hearing on: Goals, program coordination and evaluation, public education, state and local government, cap and trade report (412-E).

The new regulations could require utilities, refineries, gas stations and other businesses to implement costly new policies and technologies to drastically reduce emissions of chemicals that can form smog. Business groups assailed the new regulations, arguing that the proposal could lead to unnecessary energy cost increases and job losses at major businesses and refineries.

For more information, see the EPA’s Website.

Below are some of the key provisions of the legislation:

• Renewable Energy Mandates. The bill increases Wisconsin’s renewable energy mandate from 10 percent by 2015 to 10 percent by 2013. The renewable energy mandate then jumps to 20 percent by 2020, and to 25 percent by 2025.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The bill calls for a “low carbon fuel standard,” which seeks to limit “carbon intensive” fuels. Its ultimate aim is to prohibit oil from Canada’s oil sands and limit corn ethanol. Both fuels are more carbon intensive than conventional gasoline. Wisconsin receives roughly 50 percent of its oil from Canada.
• California Car Low Emission Vehicle Standards. The bill requires Wisconsin to adopt California’s low emission vehicle standards. By doing so, Wisconsin would cede its regulatory authority to California bureaucrats. Automobile manufacturers and car dealers argue there is no need to adopt California’s expensive regulations given that the federal government is currently in the process of promulgating emissions and fuel efficiency regulations equally as stringent as California’s. They also argue that the federal regulations are preferable to a patchwork of state laws.
• Requiring Stricter Building Codes. The bill would force new homes and commercial buildings to follow the stringent International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The bill also allows the Department of Commerce to require builders to adopt even stricter energy codes. Builders have concerns with such regulations because the stricter energy codes add to the cost of a home and argue that the codes do not provide any energy savings.
• Adds New Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Requirements. The bill grants DNR rulemaking authority to force businesses emitting a certain amount of CO2 to report its emissions to the DNR. After collecting the data, the DNR is required to assess whether the state is meeting its goals, and if not, determine what further regulations should be implemented to reduce CO2.

Businesses affected by the bill voiced their opposition to the bill, arguing that it will increase energy costs, hurt businesses, and lead to fewer jobs. Twenty-three business groups submitted a letter to the Legislature and the Governor last month explaining their concerns with the legislation.

Hamilton Consulting Regulatory Watch will continue to closely monitor this legislation and provide timely updates.

Nearly four years after the law (Assembly Bill 32) was enacted, a movement is afoot in California to stop the law from fully taking effect until the state’s unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent. Currently, California’s unemployment rate is hovering over 12 percent. According to the New York Times’ blog, Green Inc., a group known as the People’s Advocate and a state legislator are seeking signatures to place an initiative on the ballot.

In Wisconsin, legislators recently unveiled legislation (LRB 3883/1) which includes a number of provisions similar to California’s law - including a low carbon fuel standard, increasing the state’s renewable energy mandate, and forcing Wisconsin to adopt California’s emission standards for vehicles. The bill is expected to be introduced later this month, and public hearings scheduled shortly thereafter.