BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 739
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 739 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 13, 2011
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:12-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and
Oakland, by July 1, 2012, to assess infrastructure and air
quality improvement needs. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, by
July 1, 2012, to assess infrastructure and air quality
improvement needs and to provide the assessments to the
Legislature by July 1, 2012, including improvement costs,
funding sources, and funding options.
2)Requires the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports to consult with
the Southern California Association of Governments and the
Oakland port to consult with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission on infrastructure projects that improve cargo
movement efficiency and reduce congestion impacts associated
with cargo movement.
3)Requires the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports to consult with
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Oakland to
consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District on
air quality projects that reduce pollution associated with
cargo movement, including projects that reduce pollution from
trucks, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and ships.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible state costs.
2)Local, nonreimbursable costs of an unknown amount to complete
infrastructure assessments.
SB 739
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. According to the author, there have been several
plans for goods movement infrastructure or for reducing goods
movement emissions, but those plans are now dated and,
generally, do not identify funding sources. The author
contends this bill will help define the infrastructure and air
quality needs of the state's largest ports, as well as the
funding sources to pay for those needs.
2)Background .
a) California's Ports. State law establishes 11 ports:
Humboldt Bay, Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland,
Redwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, San
Francisco, and Stockton. The law allows each port to
establish a general plan and prescribe specifications for
improvements. Ports are local government agencies governed
by port commissions responsible for developing,
maintaining, and overseeing the operation of shore side
facilities for the transfer of cargo between ships, trucks,
and railroads. The ports are regulated by several state
and local government agencies, including the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency, State Resources Agency,
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State Air
Resources Board, and local air quality districts.
b) Port-related Air Pollution Is Costly . According to a
2006 report by ARB, pollution from state ports causes 2,400
premature deaths annually. ARB recently estimated that
over the next 15 years, polluting activity from operations
at California's ports will have an aggregate health impact
equivalent to approximately $200 billion in present value
dollars. The state risks losing federal transportation
funding for port areas that fail to meet federal clean air
standards. ARB estimates the cost to reduce goods movement
emissions is between $6 billion and $10 billion.
c) Bond Money for Goods Movement-Related Infrastructure .
Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air
Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, authorizes
SB 739
Page 3
approximately $20 billion of general obligation bonds to
fund transportation projects to relieve congestion, improve
the movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance the
safety and security of the transportation system. Of the
$20 billion, $1 billion is for the ARB for emission
reductions, not otherwise required by law or regulation,
from activities related to the movement of freight along
California's trade corridors. An additional $2 billion in
Proposition 1B monies is dedicated to the Trade Corridor
Improvement Program for infrastructure improvements along
federally designated "Trade Corridors of National
Significance" in this state or along other corridors within
this state that have a high volume of freight movement.
3)Related Legislation. This bill is substantially the same as
SB 632 (Lowenthal, 2009), which passed this committee 11-3.
SB 632 was subsequently amended to address an unrelated topic
and was held in Assembly Rules Committee.
4)Supporters include the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District and Breathe California, who argue that the bill will
provide better, more detailed funding on needed infrastructure
upgrades at California's largest ports, which will help
advance those projects and consequent air quality and
transportation improvements.
5)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081