Bill Text


Add To My Favorites | print page

AB-146 Petroleum products.(2003-2004)

SHARE THIS: share this bill in Facebook share this bill in Twitter
AB146:v98#DOCUMENT

Amended  IN  Assembly  April 02, 2003

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2003–2004 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill
No. 146

Introduced  by  Assembly Member Kehoe
 (Principal Coauthor(s): Senator Morrow)

January 17, 2003

An act to amend Section 4055 of the Family add Sections 21200.1 and 21200.2 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to child support unfair practices.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 146, as amended, Kehoe. Child support Petroleum products.
Under existing law, a refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of motor vehicle fuels or oils is prohibited from discriminating in price between different purchasers if the effect of the discrimination is harmful to competition.
This bill would prohibit a refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of petroleum products from preventing a branded gasoline franchisee from purchasing the franchisor’s branded petroleum products from any location or through any vendor in the franchisor’s wholesale network. The bill would also prohibit a refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of petroleum products from discriminating in price if the discrimination effectively prevents a franchisee from taking advantage in price differences at different locations or between different vendors.

Existing law governing child support sets forth guidelines for determining the annual net disposable income of each parent for that purpose. Amounts attributable to certain items must be deducted from the annual gross income of each parent in determining the annual net disposable income. Existing law requires the court to consider the application of a low-income adjustment, as specified, if the net monthly disposable income of a parent is less than $1,000.

This bill would extend this consideration to a parent with a net monthly disposable income of less than $1,500. The bill would further authorize the court in any default proceeding for child support to use specified statements and information in determining income, if a party fails to appear or provide that information.

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: NO   Local Program: NO  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

Section 4055 of the Family Code is amended to

SECTION 1.

 Section 21200.1 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:

21200.1.
 (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1) Energy and fuels are necessary for the movement of people, goods, and services and when consumers and businesses in California are forced to pay uncompetitive and higher prices for energy than other states there is a corresponding negative impact on the general economy. The lack of competition in energy and fuel pricing erodes the competitiveness of California businesses and reduces the real income of Californians.
(2) According to the California Energy Commission, California ranks second in the world as a gasoline consumer, behind only the United States. California gasoline demand in 2002 was more than 15 billion gallons. Based upon this rate of consumption, every penny ($0.01) added to the price of a gallon of gasoline over a period of one year represents more than $150 million from the California economy. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) California prices for gasoline have frequently exceeded the national average and the prices paid in other states by more than 20 cents ($0.20) per gallon since 1995. According to the EIA, the price in March 2003 by which California’s gasoline prices exceeded the national average for regular reformulated gasoline was more than 44 cents ($0.44) per gallon.
(3) Since 1995, California’s uniquely high gasoline prices have been the subject of various public inquiries. In response to the appearances of anticompetitive behavior by the oil companies conducting business in this state, the California State Attorney General convened a task force in 1999 that included representatives from the oil industry, gasoline station dealers, consumers, economists, and environmentalists to conduct a thorough review of gasoline pricing issues in California.
(4) On May 8, 2000, the California Attorney General issued a “Report on Gasoline Pricing in California” which included the findings of the task force. The Attorney General’s report found there was a lack of competition in the gasoline marketplace and that refiners have significant market control. According to his report, just six refiners control 92 percent of California’s gasoline refining capacity. These same six refiners account for more than 90 percent of gasoline consumed in the state. About 70 percent of California retail stations are operated under station lease agreements with a major California refiner. These stations, known as “lessee-dealers,” typically work with supply agreements to purchase gasoline exclusively from their branded refiner. Approximately 15 percent of stations in California are owned and operated by refiners, varying considerably from brand to brand. The remaining 15 percent of all California stations are owned and operated by independent dealers known as “open dealers” or “jobbers,” who may enter into arrangements with a refiner or supplier to sell “branded” gasoline.
(5) In the release of this report, Attorney General Bill Lockyer urged consideration of reasonable steps to restore healthy and vigorous competition in the California gasoline market. The proposals to achieve a more competitive market, while causing minimal impact on legitimate profit and business interests, include:
(A) Supporting branded open supply proposals to allow branded dealers currently supplied by refiners to purchase gasoline from any source selling the brand of gasoline they are required by the refiner to sell. This would increase competition in metropolitan areas that currently are the exclusive distribution territory of major-brand refiners, reducing prices to consumers. It also would reduce the ability of refiners to maintain discrete pricing zones.
(B) Supporting efforts to reduce the degree of vertical integration in the California gasoline industry and increase the number and competitive influence of independent marketers. This could be accomplished through policies that require or encourage divestment of retail stations from existing refiners to independent third parties. Other steps may be warranted, depending on the effectiveness of other recommended measures.
(b) Therefore, the Legislature declares it is in the interest of Californians and California businesses that pro-competitive and pro-consumer policies be adopted to reinstate a competitive marketplace for fuel sales in order to relieve the California economy of, and protect it from, the burden of excessive prices for fuels now and in the future.

Section 21200.2 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:

21200.2.
 (a) A refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of petroleum products may not prevent a branded gasoline franchisee from purchasing the franchisor’s branded petroleum product from any location or through any vendor in the franchisor’s wholesale petroleum product network.
(b) A refiner, distributor, manufacturer, or transporter of petroleum products may not discriminate in price between different franchisee purchasers of the franchisor’s branded petroleum products if the price discrimination effectively prevents a franchisee from taking advantage of price differences at different locations or between different vendors.

read:

4055.

(a)The statewide uniform guideline for determining child support orders is as follows: CS = K [HN - (H%) (TN)].

(b)(1)The components of the formula are as follows:

(A)CS = child support amount.

(B)K = amount of both parents’ income to be allocated for child support as set forth in paragraph (3).

(C)HN = high earner’s net monthly disposable income.

(D)H% = approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent. In cases in which parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children, H% equals the average of the approximate percentages of time the high earner parent spends with each child.

(E)TN = total net monthly disposable income of both parties.

(2)To compute net disposable income, see Section 4059.

(3)K (amount of both parents’ income allocated for child support) equals one plus H% (if H% is less than or equal to 50 percent) or two minus H% (if H% is greater than 50 percent) times the following fraction:

Total Net Disposable
Income Per Month

K

$0–800

0.20 + TN/16,000

$801–6,666

0.25

$6,667–10,000

0.10 + 1,000/TN

Over $10,000

0.12 + 800/TN

For example, if H% equals 20 percent and the total monthly net disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (1 + 0.20) × 0.25, or 0.30. If H% equals 80 percent and the total monthly net disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (2 - 0.80) × 0.25, or 0.30.

(4)For more than one child, multiply CS by:

2 children

1.6

3 children

2

4 children

2.3

5 children

2.5

6 children

2.625

7 children

2.75

8 children

2.813

9 children

2.844

10 children

2.86

(5)If the amount calculated under the formula results in a positive number, the higher earner shall pay that amount to the lower earner. If the amount calculated under the formula results in a negative number, the lower earner shall pay the absolute value of that amount to the higher earner.

(6)In any default proceeding where proof is by affidavit pursuant to Section 2336, or in any proceeding for child support in which a party fails to appear after being duly noticed, H% shall be set at zero in the formula if the noncustodial parent is the higher earner or at 100 if the custodial parent is the higher earner, where there is no evidence presented demonstrating the percentage of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the children. H% may not be set as described above if the moving party in a default proceeding is the noncustodial parent or if the party who fails to appear after being duly noticed is the custodial parent. A statement by the party who is not in default as to the percentage of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the children shall be deemed sufficient evidence.

(7)In all cases in which the net disposable income per month of the obligor is less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), the court shall rule on whether a low-income adjustment shall be made. The ruling shall be based on the facts presented to the court, the principles provided in Section 4053, and the impact of the contemplated adjustment on the respective net incomes of the obligor and the obligee. Where the court has ruled that a low-income adjustment shall be made, the child support amount otherwise determined under this section shall be reduced by an amount that is no greater than the amount calculated by multiplying the child support amount otherwise determined under this section by a fraction, the numerator of which is 1,500 minus the obligor’s net disposable income per month, and the denominator of which is 1,500. If a low-income adjustment is allowed, the court shall state the reasons supporting the adjustment in writing or on the record and shall document the amount of the adjustment and the underlying facts and circumstances.

(8)In any default proceeding for child support in which a party fails to appear after being duly noticed and that party has provided no income information to the court, the court may consider any information from tax returns, wage statements, account statements, and any other relevant information that is made available to the court in determining the annual gross income and net monthly disposable income of that party.

(9)Unless the court orders otherwise, the order for child support shall allocate the support amount so that the amount of support for the youngest child is the amount of support for one child, and the amount for the next youngest child is the difference between that amount and the amount for two children, with similar allocations for additional children. However, this paragraph does not apply to cases in which there are different time-sharing arrangements for different children or if the court determines that the allocation would be inappropriate in the particular case.

(c)If a court uses a computer to calculate the child support order, the computer program may not automatically default affirmatively or negatively on whether a low-income adjustment is to be applied. If the low-income adjustment is applied, the computer program may not provide the amount of the low-income adjustment. Instead, the computer program shall ask the user whether or not to apply the low-income adjustment, and if answered affirmatively, the computer program shall provide the range of the adjustment permitted by paragraph (7) of subdivision (b).