BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 582 (Emmerson)
          As Amended  June 22, 2011
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :36-2  
           
           TRANSPORTATION      14-0                                        
                                           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal,         |     |                          |
          |     |Jeffries, Achadjian,      |     |                          |
          |     |Blumenfield, Bonilla,     |     |                          |
          |     |Buchanan, Eng, Furutani,  |     |                          |
          |     |Galgiani, Logue, Miller,  |     |                          |
          |     |Norby, Portantino,        |     |                          |
          |     |Solorio                   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Authorizes, until January 1, 2017, a metropolitan 
          planning organization (MPO) and a local air quality management 
          district or air pollution control district (air district) to 
          adopt jointly an ordinance that requires certain employers 
          located within their common area of jurisdiction to offer their 
          employees specified commute benefits with the goal of reducing 
          single-occupant vehicle trips.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Beginning on January 1, 2013, allows a local air district and 
            a MPO to jointly adopt a commute benefit ordinance for their 
            common jurisdiction that require employers to offer one of the 
            following options:  

             a)   A pretax option consistent with federal law allowing 
               covered employees to exclude from taxable wages certain 
               employee transit pass, vanpool, or bicycle commuting costs; 


             b)   An employer-paid benefit whereby the covered employer 
               offers a subsidy to offset the transit or vanpool commuting 
               costs.  In 2013, the subsidy must be equal to either the 
               monthly cost of commuting or $75, whichever is lower, and 
               annually thereafter the subsidy must be adjusted as 
               consistent with the California Consumer Price Index; or, 









                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  2


             c)   Transportation furnished by the covered employer at no 
               or low cost to the covered employee in a vanpool, bus, or 
               multi-passenger vehicle operated by or for the employer.  
               Provides that an employer may offer a more generous 
               commuter benefit than is otherwise required by the 
               applicable commute benefit ordinance.  

          1)Provides that a covered employer is not prevented from 
            offering a more generous commuter benefit if consistent with 
            the commute benefit ordinance.  

          2)Allows an employer offering an alternative commuter benefit 
            not identified above to seek approval of the alternative 
            benefit from the MPO.  The MPO may approve the alternative 
            benefit if it determines the alternative benefit provides at 
            least the same benefit in terms of reducing single-occupant 
            vehicle trips as any of the options above.  

          3)Requires that the commute benefit ordinance provide covered 
            employers with at least six months to comply after adoption of 
            the ordinance.  

          4)Establishes the role of transportation management associations 
            in the place of employers in determining compliance with the 
            ordinance.  

          5)Requires a commute benefit ordinance to specify how the 
            implementing agencies will inform covered employers, how 
            compliance will be demonstrated, the procedures for proposing 
            and criteria used to evaluate an alternative commuter benefit, 
            and any consequences for noncompliance.  

          6)Requires that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
            Control District first adopt a commute benefit ordinance 
            before adoption by all eight MPOs partially or wholly within 
            its jurisdiction.  

          7)Provides that the statutory or regulatory authority of a MPO 
            or air district is not limited or restricted.  

          8)Excludes from the provisions of this bill the South Coast Air 
            Quality Management District.  

          9)Requires that on or before July 1, 2016, an MPO and air 








                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  3


            district that implements a commute benefit ordinance report to 
            the transportation policy committees of the Legislature on the 
            effects of the ordinance and sets requirements for that report 
            including the following:  

              a)    Description of the program, including enforcement 
                procedures and any sanctions to be imposed on noncomplying 
                employers;  

              b)     Number of employers confirmed to have complied with 
                the ordinance that did not previously offer a commute 
                benefit; 

              c)     Number of employees who stopped driving alone to work 
                in order to take transit or a vanpool, or to commute by 
                bicycle;  

              d)     Number of single-occupant vehicle trips reduced per 
                month, week, or day;  

              e)     Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas 
                emission reductions;  

              f)     Greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with 
                implementation of the commute benefit ordinance as a 
                percentage of the region's greenhouse gas emission target 
                established by the California Air Resources Board (ARB); 
                and,  

              g)     Number of businesses that received a penalty for not 
                complying with the ordinance and a description of the 
                penalties imposed.  

          1)Prohibits the use of federal planning funds provided to MPOs 
            for the implementation and enforcement of the benefit commute 
            ordinance.  

          2)Defines "covered employer" to mean any employer for which an 
            average of 20 or more employees perform work for compensation 
            on a full-time basis within the area where a commute benefit 
            ordinance is adopted except that a MPO may provide for the 
            ordinance to apply solely to employers with 50 or more 
            employees.  









                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  4


          3)Defines "covered employee" to mean an employee who performed 
            at least an average of 20 hours of work per week within the 
            previous calendar month within the area where the ordinance is 
            adopted.  

          4)Sunsets the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2017.  

           EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Provides that air districts have primary responsibility for 
            controlling air pollution from all sources, other than 
            emissions from mobile sources.  

          2)Authorizes air districts to adopt rules and regulations that 
            carry out their attainment plans and are not in conflict with 
            state law and federal laws and rules and regulations.  

          3)Prohibits air districts or any other public agency, including 
            a congestion management agency, from requiring an employer to 
            implement an employee trip reduction program unless the 
            program is expressly required by federal law.  

          4)Requires the South Coast Air Quality Management District to 
            adopt, implement, and enforce transportation control measures 
            for the attainment of state or federal ambient air quality 
            standards, in accordance with specified procedures.  

          5)Authorizes air districts to adopt and implement regulations 
            that reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect and areawide 
            sources of air pollution and also encourages or requires the 
            use of measures which reduce the number or length of vehicle 
            trips.  

          6)Requires air districts to adopt, implement, and enforce 
            transportation control measures for the attainment of state or 
            federal ambient air quality standards.  An air district that 
            has entered into an agreement with a council of governments or 
            a regional agency is directed to jointly develop a plan for 
            transportation control measures in accordance with specified 
            criteria.  

          7)Under federal law, establishes MPOs for the purpose of 
            developing regional transportation plans in urbanized areas 
            with populations greater than 50,000.  Does not confer 








                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  5


            authority to adopt or enforce local or regional land use or 
            commute management regulations.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

           COMMENTS  :  The author contends that this bill "will help reduce 
          congestion, cut air pollution, and achieve the 
          transportation-related greenhouse gas reduction targets adopted 
          by ARB in 2010, consistent with SB 375 (Steinberg, Chapter 728, 
          Statutes of 2008).  A regional commute benefit policy will give 
          California's MPOs a new tool to help achieve the greenhouse gas 
          reduction targets set by the ARB and reduce other tailpipe 
          emissions."  

          This bill would authorize a pilot program, until January 1, 
          2017, allowing an MPO jointly with an air district to adopt a 
          regional ordinance that requires certain employers located 
          within their common area of jurisdiction to offer their 
          employees specified commute benefits with the goal of reducing 
          single-occupant vehicle trips.  An assessment of the 
          effectiveness of the ordinance is required from entities 
          implementing the regional ordinance.  

          Current local ordinances:  Several cities, including Berkeley, 
          Richmond, and San Francisco, have already adopted commute 
          benefit ordinances with similar options as those provided in 
          this bill.  Further, San Mateo County is currently considering 
          one as well.  According to the author, "In the cities where 
          these policies are already in place, most employers have chosen 
          the first option.  This option provides a significant financial 
          benefit to the employer by reducing payroll taxes (roughly 9% of 
          subject wages) and lowers employee commute costs by up to 40%."  
          Accordingly, although local entities are currently enjoying 
          successes with their local ordinances, this bill will establish 
          a uniform procedure to be followed allowing the enactment of 
          ordinances on a regional level.  

          Increased role for MPOs:  MPOs are agencies established under 
          federal law in urbanized areas with more than 50,000 persons 
          with the purpose of developing the area's regional 
          transportation plan (RTP), as required by federal law.  There 
          are 18 MPOs in California, which together cover 37 counties.  
          Many MPOs are also the regional transportation planning agency 
          (RTPA) established under state law.  While the specific 








                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  6


          responsibilities of an RTPA may vary somewhat across each 
          region, RTPAs generally have responsibility for transportation 
          planning and allocating funds from certain state and federal 
          highway and transit programs.  While RTPAs can use their 
          authority to program funding for projects that it deems meet 
          regional priorities as a means to compel local transportation 
          agencies within its jurisdiction to adopt policies and programs 
          consistent with regional transportation goals, they do not have 
          authority to directly govern either public agencies or private 
          sector businesses as this bill provides.  

          Furthermore, SB 375 (Steinberg) requires ARB to develop regional 
          targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions for the 
          automobile and light-duty truck sector and requires MPOs to 
          develop and incorporate into the regional transportation plan a 
          sustainable communities strategy that demonstrates how the 
          region will achieve its regional target.  While an MPO does not 
          have authority over many elements addressed by a sustainable 
          communities strategy, such as local land use, the policy 
          contained in SB 375 reflects climate change as a regional 
          concern and acknowledges that regional planning agencies have a 
          role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  On a limited 
          pilot basis, this bill would confer additional options to the 
          MPOs for their SB 375 compliance efforts to reducing greenhouse 
          gas emissions from single occupancy vehicle trips.  

          Federal planning funds:  Federal planning funds allocated to 
          MPOs are authorized for general transportation planning 
          purposes; implementation and enforcement of the commute benefit 
          ordinance would not necessarily be consistent with the purposes 
          for which the federal funds are allocated.  

          Local elected officials:  This bill prescribes new roles and 
          responsibilities for MPOs on a limited basis in terms of 
          enacting regional commute benefit option ordinances.  However, 
          the governing boards of these MPOs may not necessarily be fully 
          comprised of locally elected officials.  Voting members of MPOs 
          who are selected and not elected are not accountable to the 
          local citizenry but are only accountable to the appointing 
          power.  Further, according to the Bay Area Air Quality 
          Management District, this bill "would allow the local elected 
          officials who comprise the MPO and air district boards to decide 
          whether to establish such a requirement on employers in their 
          regions."  Accordingly, for the enactment of regional commute 








                                                                  SB 582
                                                                  Page  7


          benefit option ordinances as this bill provides, as the MPOs and 
          air districts are not fully comprised of local elected 
          officials, should the decisions of these entities be governed by 
          the vote of only the local elected officials?  

          Commute benefit option implementation questions:  There are 
          questions related to the implementation of this bill's impact.  
          First, this bill does not specify if the commute benefit 
          ordinance will be enforced by the air district or MPO, or both.  
          How will an MPO or air district know whether or not an employer 
          is complying with the ordinance?  What are the penalties for 
          failure to comply and how will the revenues be distributed?  
          This bill is silent with regard to these provisions in order to 
          give each MPO and air district seeking to establish an ordinance 
          the flexibility to develop a compliance regime that meets the 
          needs of employers within their own region.  

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :   Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 
                                                                FN: 0001378