BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1493
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1493 (Pavley)
As Amended June 28, 2002
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 6, 2002) |SENATE: |23-16|(June 29, |
| | | | | |2002) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
COMMITTEE VOTE : 10-7 RECOMMENDATION : concur
Original Committee Reference: RULES
SUMMARY : Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt
regulations to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by motor
vehicles. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding global
warming, greenhouse gas emissions, and the contribution of the
transportation sector to these emissions in California.
2)Requires the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) to consult
with ARB in order to adopt procedures and protocols for the
reporting of reductions in greenhouse gases.
3)Restricts public access to CCAR records that are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act.
4)Requires ARB to develop and adopt, no later than January 1, 2005,
regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective
reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles.
5)Prohibits ARB regulations from going into effect before January
1, 2006, and provides that they may apply only to model-year 2009
or later motor vehicles.
6)Requires ARB, within 10 days of adopting the regulations, to
transmit them to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of
the Legislature for review.
7)Requires the Legislature to hold at least one public hearing to
review the regulations, and allows the adoption of legislation to
modify them.
AB 1493
Page 2
8)Requires ARB, in developing the regulations, to:
a)Consider their technological feasibility and economic impact;
b)Conduct workshops in areas of the state with significant exposure
to air contaminants or with minority or low-income populations,
or both;
c)Grant emission reduction credits for previous reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; and,
d)Coordinate with the Energy Commission (CEC), CCAR, and the
interagency task force.
1)Requires the regulations to provide flexibility in the means by
which compliance may be achieved. Alternative methods of
compliance must achieve equivalent or greater reductions in
emissions but may not impose any mandatory trip reduction
measures or land use restrictions.
2)Prohibits the regulations from including additional fees and
taxes on motor vehicles, fuels, or vehicle miles traveled, bans
on any specific vehicle category, reductions in vehicle weights,
speed limit reductions or limitations, or vehicle-miles-traveled
restrictions or limitations.
3)Requires the regulations to provide an exemption for low-emission
vehicles meeting optional standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
4)Requires CCAR, by July 1, 2003, to adopt procedures for reporting
mobile source greenhouse gas emission reductions.
5)Requires ARB to report to the Legislature and Governor by January
1, 2005, on the content of the regulations.
6)Allows ARB to elect not to adopt a standard for any greenhouse
gas included in an equally or more effective standard adopted in
substantially the same timeframe by the federal government.
The Senate amendments delete, entirely, the prior provisions of
this bill, replacing them with the current language.
EXISTING LAW assigns various duties to ARB in regard to setting and
enforcing clean air goals and standards.
AB 1493
Page 3
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was a spot bill dealing with
the Bureau of State Audits.
FISCAL EFFECT : ARB staff estimates their costs to be $100,000 in
fiscal year (FY) 2002-03 for start-up activities and an additional
$100,000 per year through FY 2004-05 to develop regulations and
implement this bill. CEC staff indicates there are no costs to CEC
to adopt procedures and protocols for the reporting and
certification of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile
sources as these duties are consistent with CEC's mandate as set
out in SB 1771 (Sher), Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000. ARB staff
indicates they intend to fold the emission reduction regulations
into the next round of passenger vehicle emission regulations that
are expected to come before their governing board in FY 2004-05.
Public hearings, workshops, consultations with auto manufacturers
and other stakeholders would be expanded to include greenhouse
gases along with other emission reduction strategies.
COMMENTS : This bill is essentially a reintroduction, with some
modifications, of AB 1058 (Pavley), which is currently pending
concurrence in Senate amendments.
This bill's sponsor, Bluewater Network, references a report from
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
predicting an increase of up to 10.4 degrees in the Earth's
temperature over the next century and indicating that the past
decade was the warmest on record in the last 140 years. The
sponsor further notes that California is home to 0.5% of the
world's population, yet emits nearly 7% of global CO2 emissions.
This bill is intended to remove the ambiguity in the Clean Air Act,
which, according to the sponsor, is unclear on, whether ARB has the
authority to regulate CO2 emissions.
While the scientific community appears largely to accept that CO2
emissions are associated with increasing temperatures, global
warming theories continue to be the subject of some debate.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that warming of the magnitude quoted
from the United Nations report would be severely disruptive to
water supplies, agriculture, human health, coastlines, and entire
island nations. And, according to most sources, automotive
emissions are a major contributor to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Under former President Clinton, the United States (U.S.) was a
signatory to the 1997 "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
AB 1493
Page 4
Framework Convention on Climate Change." This treaty would commit
the United States to a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 7%
below 1990 levels during a "commitment period" between 2008-2012.
The U.S. Senate, however, has not approved the treaty. The Bush
administration, while acknowledging the likelihood of global
warming, is not supportive of the treaty either. In the absence of
federal action on CO2 emissions, this bill would put California in
the forefront of efforts to address global warming issues.
Opponents contend that federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) law and the Clean Air Act prohibit state action on CO2
regulation. This contention is based on the theory that CO2
regulation is equivalent to fuel economy regulation, preempted by
CAFE, and that CO2 does not create localized pollution problems,
making it ineligible for state regulation. (Proponents counter
that CO2 regulation need not entail fuel economy standards and that
other states have successfully enacted CO2 standards.) Opponents
also point out that modern vehicles emit 97% less pollution than
their 1970 counterparts and that new vehicle pollution will be
reduced an additional 75% over the next seven years. They would
prefer that consumers be encouraged to embrace advanced, and more
fuel-efficient, technologies through incentives rather than what
they characterize as "command-and-control" methods such as this
bill.
The bill's predecessor, AB 1058, attracted a great deal of public
attention. Much of this attention centered around possible
measures, real or imagined, that the ARB might implement through
its regulations in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In
response to these concerns, this bill lays out a fairly extensive
list of actions that the ARB would be prohibited from enacting
through its regulations. The prohibited actions would include:
motor vehicle tax surcharges, increased fuel taxes, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) limits or fees, sport utility vehicle (SUV) or
minivan bans, vehicle weight reductions, or speed limit reductions.
Additionally, while AB 1058 had a one-year lag between the adoption
of regulations by the ARB and their implementation - presumably to
give the Legislature time to overturn them by statute if they were
deemed unreasonable, this bill explicitly requires the regulations
to be reviewed by the Legislature and allows modification of the
regulations by statute. This approach, however, continues to make
the ARB regulations effective unless the Legislature takes
affirmative action to modify or overturn them. In the absence of
AB 1493
Page 5
any specific action by the Legislature, the regulations would be
effective precisely as drafted, even if they have a significantly
detrimental effect on the automotive industry and the state's
economy. A different approach, which the author and sponsors have
rejected, would make the regulations' effectiveness contingent upon
explicit approval by the Legislature. Alternatively, the ARB could
be directed to draft recommended legislation, rather than
regulations, for possible enactment by the Legislature. This
approach has been rejected as well. Consequently, and for the
reasons cited above, the opponents of AB 1058 continue to oppose
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0005796