BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1112 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 1112 (Huffman) - As Amended: April 13, 2011 Policy Committee: Natural ResourcesVote:6-3 Water, Parks and Wildlife 9-4 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill increases fees to fund the state's oil spill prevention and response efforts and increases inspection of oversight of vessels transferring oil. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) to conduct a risk assessment of vessels engaged in operations to transfer oil and other goods to determine the highest risk transfers. 2)Requires OSPR to increase by 2% annually the monitoring and inspection of oil transfer operations until at least 10% of such operations are monitored and inspected, and requires that at least 50% of such inspections take place at fuel transfer operations at anchorage. 3)Increases the maximum per-barrel fee to support OSPR, from $0.05 per barrel to $0.08 a barrel, and authorizes OSPR to adjust the maximum fee annually for inflation. 4)Increases the nontank per-vessel fee, from $2,500 or less to $3,000, which is required for a vessel to receive a certificate of financial responsibility from OSPR. 5)Requires the State Lands Commission (SLC) and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to independently contract with the Department of Finance for a report on the financial basis and programmatic effectiveness of the state's oil spill prevention programs, to be submitted by January 1, 2013, and quadrennially thereafter. AB 1112 Page 2 6)Requires SLC to report to the Legislature, by March 1, 2012, on actions taken and pending, as well as recommended statutory changes, to ensure maximum safety to prevention of harm during offshore oil drilling. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Increased annual revenue to OSPAF of $6.5 million to $16.5 million, comprised of: a) $5 million to $15 million annually, assuming a three-cent increase in the per-barrel fee. (Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (OSPAF).) b) Approximately $1.5 million from the nontank vessel fee. (OSPAF). 2)Annual costs beginning in 2011-12 and thereafter to OSPR, in the range of $2 million to $3 million, to increase its monitoring and inspection of oil transfer operations, which will require additional specialist, wardens, vehicles and monitoring equipment. (OSPAF.) (DFG, in which OSPR operates, reports that it will need to increase, from 60 to about 650, the number of transfers it monitors and investigates annually.) 3)One-time costs to OSPR in 2011-12 of approximately $200,000, equivalent to two staff members, to conduct a risk assessment of bunkering and lightering and determine the highest risk transfers. (OSPAF.) 4)Quadrennial costs to DFG and SLC in the tens of thousands of dollars to contract with Finance for a report on the financial basis and programmatic effectiveness of the state's oil spill prevention programs. (Special funds.) 5)Minor, absorbable costs to SLC to report to the Legislature. COMMENTS 1)Rationale. The author notes that OSPAF is nearing insolvency and preparing for significant layoffs, which would leave the state more vulnerable to damaging and costly marine oil spills. The author intends this bill to provide the funding AB 1112 Page 3 for these efforts and to increase oversight of oil transport and transfer. 2)Background. Statute charges OSPR, which operates in DFG with providing the best achievable protection of the state's natural resources by preventing, preparing for and responding to spills of "oil and other deleterious materials." OSPR is funded by revenue generated by a small portion of fees imposed on oil tanker owners and operators that is deposited into OSPAF. OSPR projects a $2.3 million OSPAF deficit in 2011-12, growing to $18 million in 2013-14. Absent additional funding, OSPR anticipates significant cuts that will severely hamper oil spill prevention and response. The OSPAF per-barrel fee has been increased only once in the last 20 years, and that increase, in 2002, raised the fee to $0.05 per barrel from $0.04 per barrel. 3)Related Legislation. AB 234 (Huffman) would have increased the OSPAF fee to $0.06 per barrel. When heard by this committee, the bill dealt with another subject. It passed the Assembly 45-28 and the Senate 21-14 but was vetoed by the governor, who stated the bill was unnecessary and that the $0.02 fee increase far exceeded OSPR's estimates of its needs. 4)Support. The bill is supported by the State Lands Commission, the California Coastal Commission and many organizations that seek to protect the marine environment. 5)Opposition . This bill is opposed by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and the Western States Petroleum Association, who make several claims that that, they contend, undercut the justification for raising the per-barrel fee by as much as 60%. Those claims are: a) The Legislature recently borrowed tens of millions of dollars from what the opponents describe as OSPAF's sister fund-the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund. b) At current inspection levels, very few spills have occurred during transfer, undercutting the rationale for increased inspections. c) DFG has used OSPAF monies for activity unrelated to oil AB 1112 Page 4 spill prevention, such as funding inland warden patrols. d) During the last five years, OSPR expenditures have exceeded revenue by less than 5%. e) The fund balance primarily reflects a severe drop in economic activity; as the economy recovers, so will the fund condition. Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081