BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 582
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 582 (Yee)
As Amended July 7, 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,
c) Transportation furnished by the covered employer at no
SB 582
Page 2
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
district that implements a commute benefit ordinance report to
the transportation policy committees of the Legislature on the
SB 582
Page 3
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.
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
SB 582
Page 4
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)Establishes, under federal law, MPOs for the purpose of
developing regional transportation plans in urbanized areas
with populations greater than 50,000. Does not confer
authority to adopt or enforce local or regional land use or
commute management regulations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
SB 582
Page 5
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
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
SB 582
Page 6
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
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
SB 582
Page 7
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: 0001499