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