STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 24, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Cynthia Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
Subject: Request by Vice Mayor Gold for the City Council to Consider Supporting Governor Newsom’s Proposal for a Price Gouging Penalty on Excess Oil Refiner Profits
Attachments: 1. Fact Sheet – Price Gouging Penalty
2. FAQ – Price Gouging Penalty
3. Bill Text – Senate Bill 2 (Skinner): Energy: Transportation Fuels: Supply and Pricing: Maximum Gross Gasoline Refining Margin
INTRODUCTION
Oil companies increased the price of gasoline in California to $6.42 per gallon in the fall of 2022, a historic $2.61 more than the national average. This contributed to record oil profits of $63 billion in just 90 days for the various oil companies.
On December 5, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom and Senator Nancy Skinner unveiled a proposed price gouging penalty on oil companies’ excess profits to deter excessive price increases and keep money in Californians’ pockets..
Vice Mayor Gold is requesting the City Council consider supporting Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for a price gouging penalty on excess oil refiner profits. This request would include supporting Senate Bill 2 (Skinner): Energy: Transportation Fuels: Supply and Pricing: Maximum Gross Gasoline Refining Margin (“SB 2”).
DISCUSSION
In September 2022, California’s gas prices unexplainably climbed to $6.42. This price hike occurred while crude oil prices decreased, state taxes and fees remained unchanged, and refinery maintenance only affected 5.8 percent of the state’s gas supply.
In response to the unexplained increases in the price of gasoline, Governor Newsom ordered the state to switch to winter blend gasoline and demanded accountability from oil companies and refiners that do business in California. Since California’s record-high gas prices of $6.42, the Governor’s actions have reduced gasoline prices to $4.77 (as of December 5, 2022), a decrease of $1.65 since the peak.
Meeting Date: January 24, 2023
Governor Gavin Newsom convened a special session of the California Legislature on December 5 to consider adopting legislation implementing a price gouging penalty on oil companies. This was announced after the five major oil refiners in the state refused to attend a state hearing which was investigating the unprecedented spike in gasoline prices in September 2022. This spike in gasoline prices resulted in record refiner profits of $63 billion in just 90 days, disproportionately affecting low and middle-income families.
In the third quarter of 2022, oil companies reported record high profits as follows:
Phillips 66 profits jumped to $5.4 billion, a 1,243 percent increase over last year’s $402 million;
BP posted $8.2 billion in profits, its second-highest on record, with $2.5 billion going toward share buybacks that benefited Wall Street investors; Marathon Petroleum profits rose to $4.48 billion, a 545 percent increase over last year’s $694 million;
Valero’s $2.82 billion in profits were 500 percent higher than the year before; PBF Energy’s $1.06 billion in profits were 1,700 percent higher than the year before;
Shell reported a $9.45 billion in profits that sent $4 billion to shareholders for stock buybacks;
Exxon reported their highest-ever $19.7 billion in profits; and Chevron reported $11.2 billion in profits, their second-highest quarterly profit ever.
Senate Bill 2, introduced by Senator Skinner, would make it unlawful for oil refiner companies to charge excessive profits which would be punishable by a civil penalty from the California Energy Commission (“CEC”). The amount of the maximum margin and the amount of the penalty will be determined through the legislative process. Any penalties collected by the penalty will go to a Price Gouging Penalty Fund and then given back to Californians.
The proposal also improves transparency and oversight of the oil industry by the state, expanding the CEC and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s ability to investigate and obtain information on costs, profits and pricing so the state can better address the causes of pricing irregularities and minimize the likelihood of future supply or price shocks.
FISCAL IMPACT
Potential cost savings in fuel prices due to greater oversight of the oil refining companies by the state.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider Vice Mayor Gold’s request to support Governor Newsom’s proposal for a price gouging penalty on excess oil refiner profits and to also consider supporting Senate Bill 2. Should the City Council concur with supporting Governor Newsom’s proposal and/or Senate Bill 2, then staff will prepare letters for the Mayor to sign.
Meeting Date: January 24, 2023
Gabriella Yap
Senior Policy & Management
Administrator, Public Safety
Approved By
Attachment 1
TAKING ON BIG OIL’S EXCESSIVE PROFITS
TO KEEP MONEY IN YOUR POCKETS
A price gouging penalty on Big Oil and the country’s
most aggressive transparency measures
● Governor Newsom is proposing a price gouging penalty on excess oil refiner profits to help keep gas prices down and protect Californians from being ripped off
● California will hold Big Oil accountable with the country’s most aggressive transparency and oversight measures to help prevent future price gouging As oil companies continue to evade questions about unexplained gas price hikes that led to record profits, Governor Gavin Newsom is convening a special session of the California Legislature to pass a penalty on oil companies’ price gouging to prevent Californians from being ripped off.
Oil companies hiked the price of gas in California to $6.42 per gallon this fall, a historic $2.61 more than the national average. This contributed to record oil profits of $63 billion in just 90 days for Big Oil. Governor Newsom’s actions since the peak price has decreased costs by more than $1.63.
This price hike occurred while crude oil prices dropped, state taxes and fees remained unchanged, and refinery maintenance only affected 5.8% of the state’s gas supply. Governor Newsom’s proposal will discourage price hikes from happening in the first place, get money back into Californians’ pockets, and establish new accountability and transparency measures.
PRICE GOUGING PENALTY TO KEEP MONEY IN CALIFORNIANS’ POCKETS The price gouging penalty is structured to prevent oil companies from lining their pockets by hiking up gas costs, instead keeping prices low and money in people’s pockets. If an oil company violates the law by collecting excessive profits, they will be fined and that penalty money would be given back to Californians.
● OUTLAWING REFINERS FROM CHARGING EXCESSIVE COSTS, DISCOURAGING PRICE HIKES FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. When a refiner’s gross margin exceeds a certain amount, the California Energy Commission (CEC) will be authorized to impose a civil penalty that would increase with the size of the price gouging. The purpose is to deter excessive pricing by refiners in the first place.
● KEEPING MONEY IN CALIFORNIANS’ POCKETS. While the goal of the price gouging penalty is to discourage price hikes from hitting Californians in the first place, any penalties collected will go to a Price Gouging Penalty Fund and will then go back to Californians.
TRANSPARENCY & OVERSIGHT TO HOLD BIG OIL ACCOUNTABLE
In addition to the price gouging penalty, California is taking action to demand greater transparency from the oil industry to shed light on factors that increase the price of gasoline and contribute to gas price spikes.
● IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN THE OIL INDUSTRY SO THE STATE CAN ROOT OUT THE CAUSES OF PRICING IRREGULARITIES. By expanding the CEC and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s ability to investigate and obtain information from Big Oil, the state can evaluate costs, profits, and pricing in the refining, distribution, and retail segments of the California gasoline market, and to uncover pricing irregularities in the California gasoline market and their effect on tax revenue.
● PROVIDING FOR GREATER OVERSIGHT TO MINIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE SUPPLY OR PRICE SHOCKS. The Governor’s proposal will give the CEC the ability to ensure that maintenance and inventory levels do not lead to supply shortages, which have led to price hikes.
Attachment 2
Price Gouging Penalty
FAQ
Q: What is a price gouging penalty and how would it benefit Californians at the pump?
● The price gouging penalty would outlaw refiners from charging excessive amounts, with the goal of discouraging price hikes from happening in the first place by penalizing the extreme profits Big Oil has made by hiking up the cost of gas on Californians.
○ When a refiner’s gross margin exceeds a certain amount, the California Energy Commission (CEC) will be authorized to impose a civil penalty that would increase with the size of the overage. The purpose is to deter excessive pricing by refiners in the first place. ● While the goal of the price gouging penalty is to discourage price hikes from hitting Californians in the first place, any penalties collected will go to a Price Gouging Penalty Fund and will then go back to Californians.
Q: Why is this proposal classified as a penalty and not a tax? What’s the difference between a penalty and a tax?
● The proposal makes it a “violation of law” for a refiner to charge more than the maximum margin that the bill will set.
● A tax would not involve any legal violation like this. ● A “tax” is a measure that aims to raise revenue.
● A “penalty” is a consequence for violating a legal requirement. ● The state raises money from a tax when people obey the tax law, whereas the state raises money from a penalty only if people disobey the law.
Q: How will money get back to Californians?
● The penalty will disincentivize oil companies from engaging in such consumer-harming behavior in the first place.
● By keeping prices lower in the first place, it’ll keep money in Californians’ pockets.
● If there are excess profits, the penalty will be assessed and placed into a fund that will distribute money back to Californians.
● Details on who the funds would get distributed to and how will be for the legislative process.
Q: Why does a tax require a 2/3 vote but a penalty requires only a majority vote?
● Under the California Constitution, any new “tax” requires a 2/3 vote of both houses.
● There is an exception to the definition of a “tax” for “[a] fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by … the State, as a result of a violation of law.”
Q: Would this penalty have been triggered in this last quarter? ● While the specifics still need to be worked out during the legislative process, everything we’re seeing from last quarter’s profits would indicate that, yes, the price-gouging penalty would be triggered – especially with PBF energy increasing their profits by 1700% and Phillips 66 by 1200%. ● Excessive profits that only come from ripping people off will trigger this.
Q: How does this prevent companies from passing the penalty down to Californians?
● The intention is to structure this so that it’s not cost effective to pay the penalty. If gas companies were to try to raise prices in response, they’d just be penalized even more and that money collected would go back to Californians.
Q: Gas is more expensive here than anywhere else in the country, and Republicans have pushed to suspend the gas tax to provide relief. Why wouldn’t California do that instead of a price gouging penalty?
● Suspending the gas tax will not ensure that gas prices reduce or money goes back into the pockets of Californians. Gas companies could easily pocket that extra money to further line their pockets.
● Look at what happened in Florida – they had a gas tax holiday (25.3 cents/gallon) for the month of October, and it was reported that “most of the Florida gas tax holiday savings were pocketed by fuel companies.” ● The gas tax and other state taxes/fees had nothing to do with the gas price spikes in September-October because they didn’t change then – only oil companies’ record profits changed.
● Unlike a tax holiday that relies on trusting gas companies to pass down savings, the price gouging penalty is structured to prevent price hikes in the first place to keep money in Calfiornians’ pockets. ● California advanced the largest state tax refund in American history – $9.5 billion in direct payments of up to $1,050 to help offset the cost of inflation and higher gas prices, and help cover or exceed the average amount individuals pay in gas taxes ($300/year).
Q: Isn’t California’s gas price problem because of California taxes/regulations? ● California’s gas price is roughly 25 cents higher than other states. But that doesn’t explain the gas price spike that hit Californians earlier this year. ● No state fees, taxes, or regulations changed earlier this year. The cost of crude oil was actually dropping when the price at the pump was rising.
Refinery maintenance accounted for less than 6% of California’s gas supply.
● Big Oil spiked the price of gas last quarter, and they raked in a record $63 billion in profits.
Attachment 3
california legislature—2023–24 first extraordinary session SENATE BILL No. 2
Introduced by Senator Skinner
December 5, 2022
An act to add Section 25355.5 to the Public Resources Code, relating to energy.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 2, as introduced, Skinner. Energy: transportation fuels: supply and pricing: maximum gross gasoline refining margin.
Existing law requires operators of refineries in the state that produce gasoline meeting California specifications, within 30 days of the end of each calendar month, to submit a report to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission containing certain information regarding its refining activities related to the production of gasoline in that month. Existing law requires the commission to notify a refiner that has failed to timely provide the required information and imposes a civil penalty on the refiner that fails to submit the required information within 5 days of being notified of the failure.
This bill would establish a maximum gross gasoline refining margin at an unspecified amount per gallon and would authorize the commission to annually adjust the maximum gross gasoline refining margin, as provided. The bill would authorize the commission to petition the court to enjoin a refiner from exceeding the maximum gross gasoline refining margin. The bill would also authorize the commission to assess an administrative civil penalty on a refiner for exceeding the maximum gross gasoline refining margin, as provided. The bill would authorize the commission to grant a refiner’s request for an exemption from the maximum gross gasoline refining margin upon a showing by the refiner
99
of reasonable cause, and to subject the refiner to alternative maximum margins or other conditions set by the commission. The bill would require a refiner seeking an exemption to file a statement under the penalty of perjury setting forth the basis of the request for exemption.
By requiring the statement to be filed under the penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the penalties collected to be deposited into the Price Gouging Penalty Fund, which the bill would create in the State Treasury. The bill would require moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be returned, as refunds, to residents of the state.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation relating to transportation fuels, as described, including requiring the commission to conduct regular assessments of the supply and price of transportation fuels in the state, and of the impacts on production of refinery maintenance and turnarounds on fuel supply and price.
Existing law establishes the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and provides that the department is the successor to, and is vested with, the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the State Board of Equalization.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would direct the department, in collaboration with the commission, to investigate and report on aspects of the gasoline market, as specified.
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.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following:
line 3 (a) From August to October of 2022, Californians experienced line 4 some of the highest gasoline prices ever recorded in the state, even line 5 though the price of crude oil declined, state taxes and fees remained 99
SB 2 — 2 —
line 1 unchanged, and gasoline prices did not increase outside the western line 2 United States.
line 3 (b) Much of this increase was caused by refiners, which line 4 increased the costs and profits they added to the price California line 5 consumers paid at the pump, leading to prices that were line 6 substantially higher per gallon than average prices in the rest of line 7 the United States.
line 8 (c) During the third and fourth quarters of 2022, the overlap in line 9 timing of planned maintenance at refiners’ facilities resulted in a line 10 larger decrease in crude oil processing capacity than would line 11 otherwise have occurred if planned maintenance at refiners’ line 12 facilities had not coincided.
line 13 (d) During this same period of time, refiners allowed gasoline line 14 inventory levels to reach decade-low levels, placing an upward line 15 pressure on gasoline prices.
line 16 (e) This refiner conduct makes clear that greater transparency line 17 into and oversight of refinery maintenance schedules and inventory line 18 is necessary, to avoid preventable supply shocks in the market for line 19 transportation fuels.
line 20 (f) Historically, refinery outages and issues have created an line 21 opportunity for market participants to take advantage of naturally line 22 high prices by manipulating prices to stay higher longer, as line 23 evidenced by gasoline prices in California remaining elevated line 24 without explanation following a temporary price shock after a line 25 refinery explosion in 2015, which further demonstrates the need line 26 for greater visibility into the pricing, contracting, and marketing line 27 practices of industry participants.
line 28 (g) Although preventable capacity limitations and inventory line 29 shortages played a role in the third quarter of 2022 price increases, line 30 they cannot account for all of those increases. Similar factors did line 31 not lead to extreme price spikes in prior years, suggesting that the line 32 sky-high prices Californians faced from August to October of 2022 line 33 were due in significant part to opportunistic price gouging by oil line 34 companies.
line 35 (h) Indeed, during the third quarter of 2022, refiners earned line 36 record profits, with some refiners earning more than tenfold their line 37 profits for the same period of time in 2021.
line 38 (i) Fundamental change is necessary to prevent future extreme line 39 price spikes and price gouging by oil companies, which are entitled line 40 to a reasonable return but are not entitled to reap exorbitant profits 99
— 3 — SB 2
line 1 at the expense of Californians, many of whom rely on gasoline as line 2 an essential commodity or who are impacted by the increased cost line 3 of goods and services that results from the gasoline price spikes, line 4 even as the state begins to transition away from dependence on line 5 the fossil fuels that are destroying our climate. line 6 SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent line 7 legislation that would do all of the following:
line 8 (a) Require that the State Energy Resources Conservation and line 9 Development Commission (Energy Commission) conduct regular line 10 assessments of the supply and price of transportation fuels in the line 11 state, and of the impacts on production of refinery maintenance line 12 and turnarounds on fuel supply and price.
line 13 (b) Expand the Energy Commission’s authority to investigate line 14 and obtain necessary information, including information regarding line 15 pricing, supply contracts, and inventory management, from line 16 participants in the market for transportation fuels. line 17 (c) Expand the Energy Commission’s authority to order that line 18 refinery maintenance and turnarounds be rescheduled in specified line 19 circumstances, when consistent with employee and public safety line 20 and necessary to avoid supply shocks in the market for line 21 transportation fuels.
line 22 (d) Establish an advisory committee of fuels market experts to line 23 provide the Energy Commission with independent advice and line 24 insights.
line 25 (e) Require the Energy Commission and the State Air Resources line 26 Board, in consultation with the state’s fuel producers and refiners, line 27 to plan for and monitor progress toward the state’s reliable, safe, line 28 equitable, and affordable transition away from petroleum fuels, line 29 and to issue periodic reports to the Governor and the Legislature. line 30 (f) Supplement existing refinery reporting requirements by line 31 requiring more detailed reports to the Energy Commission on line 32 transportation fuel imports, inventory levels, and transactions, and line 33 on refinery maintenance and turnarounds.
line 34 SEC. 3. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent line 35 legislation that would direct the California Department of Tax and line 36 Fee Administration, in collaboration with the State Energy line 37 Resources Conservation and Development Commission, to line 38 investigate and report on the drivers of and factors affecting the line 39 price of gasoline in the refining, distribution, and retail segments line 40 of the gasoline market; to uncover pricing irregularities in the 99
SB 2 — 4 —
line 1 California gasoline market and their effect on tax revenue; and to line 2 report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature. line 3 SEC. 4. Section 25355.5 is added to the Public Resources Code, line 4 to read:
line 5 25355.5. (a) For purposes of this section, the following line 6 definitions apply:
line 7 (1) “Gross gasoline refining margin excluding state program line 8 costs” means the amount, expressed in dollars per barrel and line 9 calculated on a monthly basis, equal to the volume-weighted line 10 average rack price of wholesale gasoline sold by the refiner, less line 11 the volume-weighted fees or estimated valuations of costs line 12 embedded in all of the refiner’s wholesale gasoline sales associated line 13 with the low carbon fuel standard and the cap and trade line 14 cap-at-the-rack program, less the refiner’s volume-weighted line 15 average acquisition cost.
line 16 (2) “Maximum gross gasoline refining margin” means the line 17 maximum amount of gross gasoline refining margin excluding line 18 state program costs established or adjusted under subdivision (c). line 19 (3) “Volume-weighted average acquisition cost” is the combined line 20 volume-weighted average of the refiner’s volume-weighted average line 21 crude oil acquisition cost and the refiner’s volume-weighted cost line 22 of acquiring refined gasoline imported to California or acquired line 23 from another refiner.
line 24 (4) “Volume-weighted average rack price of wholesale gasoline” line 25 means the combined volume-weighted average of the refiner’s line 26 rack price of branded and unbranded rack sales reported under line 27 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 25355. line 28 (5) “Volume-weighted average crude oil acquisition cost” is line 29 the amount reported as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision line 30 (b) of Section 25355.
line 31 (b) Reports required under subdivision (b) of Section 25355 line 32 shall also include the volume weighted average cost of any refined line 33 gasoline acquired by a refiner during the calendar month, and the line 34 volume in barrels of refined gasoline acquired. line 35 (c) (1) (A) On and after the effective date of this section, the line 36 maximum gross gasoline refining margin shall be ____ cents per line 37 gallon.
line 38 (B) On July 1, 2024, and on July 1 of each year thereafter, the line 39 maximum gross gasoline refining margin shall automatically be 99
— 5 — SB 2
line 1 adjusted annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price line 2 Index.
line 3 (2) Beginning ____, the commission may, at a publicly noticed line 4 meeting, adjust the maximum gross gasoline refining margin based line 5 on market data as necessary to fulfill the intent and purposes of line 6 the section and to ensure that a full and affordable supply of line 7 gasoline is available to Californians.
line 8 (3) Within 15 days of an adjustment to the maximum gross line 9 gasoline refining margin pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph line 10 (1) or paragraph (2), the commission shall notify refiners of the line 11 new maximum gross gasoline refining margin by a means line 12 determined by the commission that may include, but is not limited line 13 to, mail, email, or internet website postings.
line 14 (4) Adjustments to the maximum gross gasoline refining margin line 15 pursuant to this subdivision shall be effective on the first day of line 16 the calendar month at least 15 days after the commission gives line 17 public notice of the adjustment, unless the commission orders line 18 otherwise.
line 19 (d) On and after ____, it is a violation of this section for a refiner line 20 to exceed the maximum gross gasoline refining margin. line 21 (e) The commission may petition a court to enjoin a refiner from line 22 violating subdivision (d).
line 23 (f) The commission may impose an administrative civil penalty line 24 for a violation of subdivision (d). The amount of the penalty shall line 25 presumptively be set based on the amount by which the refiner’s line 26 gross gasoline refining margin excluding state program costs line 27 exceeds the maximum gross gasoline refining margin, converted line 28 from barrels to gallons and multiplied by the number of gallons line 29 sold by the refiner during the calendar month through all line 30 transactions described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section line 31 25355, as follows:
line 32 (1) ____ percent on amounts earned by a refiner that exceed the line 33 maximum gross gasoline refining margin by less than ____ cents line 34 per gallon.
line 35 (2) ____ percent on amounts earned by a refiner that exceed the line 36 maximum gross gasoline refining margin between ____ and ____ line 37 cents, inclusive, per gallon.
line 38 (3) ____ percent on amounts earned by a refiner that exceed the line 39 maximum gross gasoline refining margin by more than ____ cents line 40 per gallon.
99
SB 2 — 6 —
line 1 (g) (1) The commission may, in its discretion, grant a refiner’s line 2 request for an exemption from the maximum gross gasoline line 3 refining margin upon a showing by the refiner of reasonable cause, line 4 and subject to alternative maximum margins or other conditions line 5 as the commission may set.
line 6 (2) Any refiner seeking an exemption shall file a statement with line 7 the commission, signed under penalty of perjury, setting forth the line 8 facts that form the basis for the request for exemption. line 9 (3) The commission shall by regulation develop procedures for line 10 considering and adjudicating requests made pursuant to this line 11 subdivision.
line 12 (h) (1) The commission shall identify, on a quarterly basis, the line 13 name and address of each refiner that has exceeded the maximum line 14 gross gasoline refining margin for any month during the previous line 15 quarter, and the amount of administrative civil penalty to be line 16 assessed.
line 17 (2) Before imposing the administrative civil penalty under line 18 subdivision (f), the executive director of the commission shall line 19 issue and serve a complaint on the refiner, and the commission line 20 shall hold a hearing, adopt a decision, and require payment of the line 21 penalty in accordance with the procedures described in subdivisions line 22 (a) to (d), inclusive, of Section 25534.1.
line 23 (3) All penalties collected under this section, less refunds and line 24 reimbursement to the commission for expenses incurred in the line 25 collection of the penalties, shall be deposited into the Price line 26 Gouging Penalty Fund, which is hereby created in the State line 27 Treasury and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be line 28 returned as refunds to residents of the state.
line 29 (4) The Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 line 30 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title line 31 2 of the Government Code) does not apply to any regulation, line 32 guideline, or adjustment of the maximum gross gasoline refining line 33 margin adopted by the commission under this chapter. line 34 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 35 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 36 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 37 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or line 38 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 39 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 40 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within 99
— 7 — SB 2
line 1 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California line 2 Constitution.
O
99
SB 2 — 8 —