BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 8
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 8 (Perea) - As Introduced: December 3, 2012
SUBJECT : Alternative fuel and vehicle technologies: funding
programs (urgency)
SUMMARY : Extends for 8-9 years (from 2015/2016 until 2024)
various temporary, vehicle-related, state and local fees and
surcharges to fund vehicle-related air quality, greenhouse gas
(GHG) and related programs administered by the California Energy
Commission (CEC), the Air Resources Board (ARB), local air
districts and the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR). Extends
all registration and license fees at current levels. Also
extends the existing retail fee on each new tire, to address
tire-related environmental impacts. Preempts ARB's authority to
require publicly available hydrogen fueling stations through
regulation and instead requires CEC to fund the development of
up to 100 such hydrogen stations from vehicle registration fee
revenues in the amount of up to $220 million over the next
11-plus years. Requires CEC and ARB to update their economic
analysis assessing the future costs of petroleum-based and
alternative fuels and assess the use of alternative fuels in the
state every two years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the California Alternative and Renewable Fuel,
Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act of
2007 [AB 118 (Nunez), Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007]. AB 118
is funded through temporary increases in vehicle registration
fees ($3), smog abatement fees ($8), boat registration fees
($10/20), and special identification plate fees ($5).
Collection of these fees is authorized until 2016. AB 118
supports three major programs:
a) The Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle
Technology Program (ARFVTP), administered by CEC, provides
grants and other financial incentives to accelerate the
development and deployment of clean, efficient, low carbon
alternative fuels and technologies. ARFVTP is funded by $2
of the vehicle registration fee and receives approximately
$100 million per year total.
AB 8
Page 2
b) The Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), administered
by ARB in consultation with local air districts, funds
projects that reduce criteria air pollutants, improve air
quality, and provide research for alternative fuels and
vehicles, vessels, and equipment technologies. AQIP is
funded by smog abatement fees, boat registration fees, and
special identification plate fees and receives between
$30-36 million per year.
c) The Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program (EFMP), under
which ARB, in consultation with BAR, pays to permanently
remove cars and small trucks from operation through
voluntary retirement by their owners. EFMP is funded by $1
of the vehicle registration fee and receives approximately
$30 million per year.
2)Establishes the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards
Attainment Program (Moyer Program) [AB 1571 (Villaraigosa),
Chapter 923, Statutes of 1999], administered by ARB and local
air districts, to fund the incremental cost of
cleaner-than-required vehicles, engines, and equipment. The
primary objective of the program is to achieve air quality
emission reductions that would not otherwise occur through
regulations or other legal mandates. The Moyer Program is
funded by vehicle registration surcharges adopted by local air
districts in nonattainment areas.
3)Expands the Moyer Program [AB 923 (Firebaugh), Chapter 707,
Statutes of 2004] to cover additional pollutants and engines,
imposes a $1 fee on tire sales to fund the Moyer Program and
CalRecycle, and establishes air quality improvement programs
through local air districts. AB 923's provisions sunset on
January 1, 2015.
4)Requires ARB to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit
equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020 and to adopt rules and
regulations to achieve maximum technologically feasible and
cost-effective GHG emission reductions [AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter
488, Statutes of 2006].
5)Requires ARB to adopt regulations that achieve the maximum
feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from
motor vehicles [AB 1493 (Pavley), Chapter 200, Statutes of
2002].
AB 8
Page 3
6)Requires CEC and ARB to adopt a state plan to increase the use
of alternative transportation fuels, including setting
alternative fuel goals for 2012, 2017 and 2022 [AB 1007
(Pavley), Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005]. The AB 1007 "State
Alternative Fuels Plan" (December 2007) recommended goals for
alternative fuel use of 9 percent by 2012, 11 percent by 2017
and 26 percent by 2022.
7)Pursuant to ARB 's Clean Fuels Outlet (CFO) regulations,
requires certain owners and lessors of retail gasoline
stations to equip an appropriate number of their stations with
clean alternative fuels. ARB's recent amendments to the
regulations focused primarily on providing outlets for
hydrogen fuels.
THIS BILL :
1)Extends until January 1, 2024 the sunset dates of each of the
various fees and surcharges that support AB 118 and the Moyer
Program, as follows:
a) $3 increase of the annual vehicle registration fee ($2
for the ARFVTP and $1 for the EFMP).
b) $8 increase of the smog abatement fee, paid to register
vehicles that are less than six years old and therefore
exempt from smog check. The revenues are split equally
between ARFVTP and AQIP.
c) $5 increase of the fee for special identification plates
for construction equipment, farm trailers, cotton trailers,
logging vehicles, and cemetery equipment. The revenues are
split equally between ARFVTP and AQIP.
d) $10 or $20 (depending upon the even or odd year of
registration) increase of the vessel registration fee. The
revenues are split equally between ARFVTP and AQIP.
e) $0.75 from the retail fee on new tires to the Air
Pollution Control Fund (ARB) for the Moyer Program and
other air emission reduction efforts.
f) $2 surcharge for local air districts on vehicle
registrations to fund emission reduction programs,
AB 8
Page 4
including the Moyer Program.
2)Defines "publicly available hydrogen fueling station" to mean
the equipment used to store and dispense hydrogen fuel to
vehicles according to industry codes and standards that is
open to the public.
3)Preempts, until January 1, 2024, ARB from enforcing
regulations related to the CFO regulation and the deployment
of hydrogen fueling stations.
4)Requires ARB to publish by January 1, 2014, and every two
years thereafter, the number of vehicles that automobile
manufacturers project to be sold or leased.
5)Requires CEC to allocate $20 million each fiscal year from
July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2016, and up to $20 million
each fiscal year thereafter, not to exceed 20 percent of
moneys appropriated by the Legislature from the ARFVTP Fund
for purposes of constructing and operating a hydrogen fueling
network sufficient to provide convenient fueling to vehicle
owners and expand that network as necessary to support a
growing market for vehicles requiring hydrogen fuel, until
there are at least 100 publicly available hydrogen fueling
stations.
6)Authorizes CEC to defer allocating the moneys as needed to
keep the number of fueling stations appropriate for the
fueling needs of hydrogen vehicles.
7)Upon consultation with ARB in determining that the private
sector is establishing publicly available hydrogen fueling
stations without the need for government support, authorizes
CEC to cease funding for the hydrogen fueling stations.
8)Requires, on or before December 31, 2015, and annually
thereafter, ARB and CEC to jointly review and report on
progress toward establishing a hydrogen fueling network, as
specified.
9)Authorizes CEC to design grants, loan programs, and other
forms of financial assistance, and authorizes CEC to enter
into an agreement with the State Treasurer's Office to provide
financial assistance to further the development of the
hydrogen fueling network.
AB 8
Page 5
10)Establishes that funds appropriated to CEC for the purposes
of hydrogen fueling stations be available for encumbrance by
CEC for up to four years from the date of the appropriation
and for liquidation up to four years after expiration of the
deadline to encumber.
11)Requires ARB, no later than July 1, 2013, to convene a
working group to evaluate the policies and goals for the Moyer
Program and programs established pursuant to AB 923.
12)States the intent of the Legislature that ARB and CEC update
the analysis of the state alternative transportation fuel use
and requires coordination between the two agencies in
implementing the various alternative fuel mandates.
13) Directs ARB and CEC, by November 1, 2014, to update the
economic analysis used to develop and review ARB's regulations
to include a range of petroleum and alternative fuel prices to
more accurately assess the future costs of petroleum-based and
alternative fuels.
14)Requires CEC, in consultation with ARB, to evaluate how the
investments could be used to increase the use of alternative
transportation fuels and to evaluate the impact of federal and
state fuel policies on increasing the use of such fuels.
15)Requires, beginning November 1, 2015, and every two years
thereafter, CEC and ARB, to include these alternative fuel
analyses in the CEC's Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).
16)Requires ARB when developing new and amended regulations, to
include a finding on the effect of the proposed regulations on
the state's alternative transportation fuels use.
17)Provides that this bill does not preempt provisions of AB 32
and that the bill be implemented consistent with
environmental, public health, and sustainability
considerations articulated in AB 118.
18)Requires ARB and CEC, when studying the state's alternative
transportation fuel use, to measure:
a) In-state job creation through the continued development
AB 8
Page 6
of an alternative fuels industry in the state;
b) Economic vulnerability of residents to future petroleum
fuel price spikes by the use of either petroleum fuels or
alternative fuels and vehicles;
c) Alternative fuel market penetration in nonattainment
areas; and,
d) Increase access to the supply of alternative fuels and
alternative fuel vehicles for all residents, including
barriers to supply.
19)Provides that the measure is an urgency statute.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown (administration of the programs is
generally supported by the fee revenue, which amounts to
approximately $250 million annually).
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, SB 1455
(Kehoe, 2012), which was nearly identical to this bill, would
have resulted in the following fiscal impacts:
1)Annual tire fee revenue, ranging from roughly $21 million to
$26 million to ARB to fund the Moyer Program, pursuant to a
$0.75 per tire increase starting January 1, 2015.
2)Annual revenue of approximately $180 million from extension of
various vehicle, vessel, and other air quality-related
surcharges to fund AB 118 programs, as follows: approximately
$105 million for ARFVTP, administered by CEC; approximately
$45 million for AQIP; administered by ARB; and, approximately
$30 million for EFMP, administered by BAR.
3)Annual local revenue, of approximately $50 million, from
extension of local surcharge on vehicle registration fees to
fund local vehicle emissions reduction projects (various local
funds).
4)Annual redirection of $20 million from the ARFVTP Fund during
each fiscal year 2013-14 through 2015-16, and up to that
amount each fiscal year thereafter, away from projects for the
development and commercialization of nonpetroleum fuels and to
projects for the construction and operation of a hydrogen
fueling network.
AB 8
Page 7
5)Ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to ARB,
CEC and BAR to continue to administer various air quality and
alternative fuel programs. These costs will be fully covered
by the fee extensions authorized by this bill.
6)Ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to ARB
and CEC to track and periodically report on alternative-fueled
vehicle sales and progress in establishing a hydrogen fueling
network, to evaluate alternative fuels use and include such
information in the IEPR, and to update the economic analysis
used in developing ARB's regulations.
COMMENTS :
1)Author's statement :
Californians suffer from the worst air pollution in the
nation, with over 90 percent of residents living in
counties with unhealthy air during some parts of the year,
exposing them to unhealthy air that contributes to
respiratory problems, heart disease, stroke, cancer and a
reduced life span. Air pollution also imposes burdens on
our economy by increasing hospital admissions, emergency
room visits and missed work days. According to a recent
study, the economic benefits of the (San Joaquin Valley)
region meeting air quality standards for ozone and
particulate matter would top $6 billion per year in reduced
health, missed work and school, and premature death; this
is equivalent to a payment of $1,600 per person per year.
In addition, California faces the challenge of meeting
several state and federal air quality and emission
reduction mandates by the mid-2020s. As the state works to
comply with these mandates, California's clean
transportation and air quality investment programs are set
to expire in 2014 and 2015. AB 8 seeks to expand
California's clean air and clean vehicle incentive
programs, in order to meet clean air, public health,
climate and economic development goals.
2)Background on AB 118, Moyer and related programs. In 2007, AB
118 established three new programs intended to promote vehicle
and fuel technology that reduces air pollution and GHG
emissions statewide. These programs are the Alternative and
Renewable Fuel Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP), the Air
AB 8
Page 8
Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) and the Enhanced Fleet
Modernization Program (EFMP).
ARFVTP funds projects by various public and private groups
that "develop and deploy innovative technologies that
transform California's fuel and vehicle types to help attain
the state's climate change policies." The CEC prepares an
investment plan, in coordination with a stakeholder advisory
committee, which outlines the ARFVTP's funding priorities.
AB 118 requires the advisory committee to include
representatives from state agencies; fuel and vehicle
technology consortia; labor, environmental, and
community-based justice and health organizations; academic
groups; consumer advocates; workforce training groups; and
private industry. Once an investment plan is completed, CEC
receives and solicits bids for projects, awarding funds based
on eligibility criteria.
Monies appropriated to the ARFVTP come from temporary
increases in smog abatement fees, vehicle registration fees,
vessel registration fees and certain other vehicle fees.
According to the CEC, $360 million of ARFVTP funds have been
awarded to projects such as the construction of electric
vehicle charging stations, the deployment of natural
gas-powered vehicles and the production of biofuels.
AQIP, administered by ARB, provides financial incentives for
public and private groups and individuals to adopt smog and
diesel particulate pollution reducing technology that
concurrently reduces GHG emissions. Two of AQIP's flagship
projects, the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) and the
Hybrid and Zero Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive
Program, represent the program's largest funding commitments.
AQIP also provides incentives for biofuels research, hybrid
truck testing, lawn and garden equipment replacement,
zero-emission all-terrain agricultural work vehicle rebates,
advanced technology demonstration and hybrid off-road
equipment pilot projects.
The Legislature appropriates about $30-40 million annually to
AQIP. These funds are derived from fees on smog abatement,
vehicle registration, vessel registration and specialty
identification plates. Since 2009, ARB has spent
approximately $126 million on AQIP programs, with $49.7
million going to CVRP and $64.4 million to hybrid and zero
AB 8
Page 9
emission truck and bus vouchers.
The EFMP supplements BAR's vehicle retirement program known as
the Consumer Assistance Program. Through joint administration
by local air districts and BAR, eligible low-income consumers
whose vehicles fail smog check tests may receive financial
assistance to voluntarily retire their vehicles and/or replace
them with vehicles meeting certain emission and model-year
requirements. During fiscal year 2011-2012, approximately $34
million of EFMP funds were expended for the retirement of
25,741 vehicles.
The Moyer Program was established in 1998 to promote
compliance with federal Clean Air Act requirements. Through
the Moyer program, local air districts provide funding
incentives for heavy-duty vehicles and equipment owners to
adopt emissions-reducing technology. To be eligible for
funding, projects must meet a cost-effectiveness criterion and
reduce nitrogen oxide and fine particulate emissions. In
2004, AB 923 expanded the Moyer Program's covered emissions to
include reductions in particulate matter and reactive organic
gasses. AB 923 also increased the new tire fee to fund the
expansion. Projects that air districts have funded through
the Moyer Program include engine retrofitting and replacement
for heavy-duty vehicles, off-road equipment, locomotives,
diesel marine vessels and stationary agricultural vehicles.
Funds for the Moyer Program are primarily derived from fees on
vehicle registration and new tire purchases. Local air
districts that administer the program are also required to
provide matching funds to implement projects. To date, $652
million has been expended through the Moyer Program to
retrofit or replace 36,480 engines.
ARB's Lower-Emission School Bus Program (LESBP), adopted
pursuant to ARB's administrative authority, funds the
replacement or retrofitting of old school buses to reduce
schoolchildren's exposure to toxic air pollutants. From the
program's inception in 2000 until 2007, the Legislature
appropriated over $100 million to the LESBP for the
replacement of 600 school buses and the retrofitting of about
3,800 diesel school bus engines. After voters passed
Proposition 1B in 2006, the LESBP received bond money of
approximately $196 million for expenditure until June 30,
2014. Under the new funding scheme, the program has funded
AB 8
Page 10
578 school bus replacements and 2,287 retrofits to date.
AB 118 and AB 923, however, contained provisions that would
sunset the funding sources for the aforementioned programs.
Under terms of AB 923, all changes to the LESBP and Moyer
program, from the expansion of covered emissions to the tire
fee and registration surcharge increases, will be repealed on
January 1, 2015. Meanwhile under AB 118, the fee increases
funding ARFVTP, AQIP, and EFMP are set to expire on January 1,
2016.
3)Another stop on the hydrogen highway - ARB trades stick for
carrot. On January 26, 2012, ARB considered amendments to the
CFO regulation as part of its Advanced Clean Cars package.
The amendments were intended to ensure that there was
sufficient hydrogen fueling infrastructure necessary to meet
forecasted fuel cell vehicle deployment. The required
stations would have helped to ensure sufficient availability
of hydrogen after fuel cell vehicles had become commercially
available (i.e., large volumes). The CFO amendments would
have required that oil refiners assure that hydrogen fueling
stations were available to the public once certain triggers
were met (10,000 fuel cell vehicles in a regional air basin or
20,000 fuel cell vehicles statewide). The ARB has withheld
finalizing the amendments because, in its view, a better way
to achieve the goals of the regulation was developed through
legislation, which, they believe, is embodied in this bill.
According to ARB:
AB 8 would direct $20 million from the AB 118 program for
each of the first three years to develop the hydrogen
infrastructure. AB 8 would also authorize the CEC to
allocate up to an additional $20 million annually after
July 1, 2016, as necessary, to construct at least 100
publicly available hydrogen fueling stations in California.
The dedication of funding for 100 hydrogen stations in
lieu of requiring the development of such stations
administratively as proposed through the CFO regulation
provides a stronger, more certain path to achieving the
state's air quality and climate change goals. Guaranteeing
funding for infrastructure upfront will support the initial
commercial launch of vehicles, which is in advance of the
triggers as proposed in the regulations. By contrast, the
regulation would have only provided for hydrogen fueling
stations after a significant volume of vehicles were on the
AB 8
Page 11
road. Adequate funding for hydrogen stations effectively
achieves the goal of the proposed regulation, therefore
rendering the regulatory changes unnecessary.
Sierra Club California objects to the repeal of ARB's
authority to enforce any element of the CFO regulation and
contends that it "undermines the integrity of the rulemaking
process?It suggests that, if one of the regulated entities is
dissatisfied with the outcome, that entity can march over to
the Capitol and get the Legislature to simply throw out the
rule?"
In response, ARB contends that the bill provides greater
certainty that the minimum fueling infrastructure will be in
place to support the initial commercial launch of fuel cell
vehicles, which are necessary for achieving the state's
long-term air quality and climate change goals. Furthermore,
the amendments to the regulation were controversial and would
have been litigated, potentially delaying their
implementation. ARB believes that the bill represents a
collaboration among stakeholders and is a more certain and
productive way to achieve the goals of the proposed regulation
amendments.
4)The give and take of AB 118. Everyone benefits from clean
air, but some of the beneficiaries are more equal than others
in the programs funded by this bill, particularly the AB 118
programs. The vast majority (over 90 percent) of funds for
both the ARFVTF ($93 million in FY 2011-12) and AQIP ($31
million in FY 2011-12) come from annual registration fees paid
through DMV by vehicle owners. AB 118 applies a registration
fee increase of $3 for all vehicles, plus an $8 increase in
the smog abatement fee that applies to newer vehicles that are
exempt from smog check. $2 of the registration fee goes to
ARFVTF and $1 to EFMP. The $8 is split between ARFVTF and
AQIP.
The registration fee increase is flat - that is it is
collected without regard to a vehicle's value. So a car
valued at $500 pays the same as a car valued at $100,000. AB
118 was a majority vote fee bill enacted prior to Proposition
26 (the bill passed the Senate with a bare majority 21 votes).
This bill, being a 2/3 vote, could scale the fee to make it
roughly proportional to vehicle value and give lower-income
drivers a break.
AB 8
Page 12
What does AB 118 fund? Listed below, for example, are the 10
largest ARFVTF awards, totaling $102 million (Overall, CEC has
made over 180 awards totaling $360 million):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Rank |Recipient | Project | Amount | Description |
| | | Type | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 1 |CALSTART |Alternativ|$18 |Administrator of various |
| | |e Fuel |million |alternative fuel vehicle |
| | |Vehicle | |programs and projects. |
| | |Developmen| | |
| | |t | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 2 |Air |Hydrogen |$11.2 |Construct 6 new hydrogen |
| |Products |Fueling |million |fueling stations and 2 |
| | |Stations | |upgrade stations at core |
| | | | |early market fuel cell |
| | | | |vehicle sales regions in |
| | | | |Southern California. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 3 |High Mt |Biogas |$11.0 |Landfill gas to |
| |Fuels | |million |bio-liquified natural gas |
| |(Waste | | |project at Ventura County |
| |Mgmt and | | |Landfill. |
| |Linde) | | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 4 |California|Technology|$10.3 |Provide employee training |
| | | Training |million |funds to California |
| |Employment| | |businesses with new |
| | Training | | |alternative fuel, fuel |
| |Panel | | |infrastructure or vehicle |
| | | | |products. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 5 |Propel |E85 |$10.1 |Construct and operate 101 |
| | |Retail |million |E85 retail ethanol stations |
| | |Stations | |throughout California. |
| | | | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 6 |Tesla |Electric |$10.0 |Expand production capacity |
| |Motors |Car |million |for the Model X cross-over |
| | | | |electric SUV. |
| | | | | |
AB 8
Page 13
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 7 |San |Natural |$9.3 |Purchase 202 heavy-duty |
| |Bernardino|Gas |million |natural gas trucks and |
| | | | |construct two |
| |Associated| | |publicly-accessible |
| | | | |liquefied natural gas |
| |Government| | |fueling stations at the |
| |s | | |Ryder facilities in San |
| | | | |Bernardino and Orange |
| | | | |Counties. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 8 |ETEC/Nissa|Electric |$8.0 |Install 2,300 level 2 |
| |n |Chargers |million |chargers and 30 DC fast |
| | | | |chargers in San Diego as |
| | | | |part of the DOE EV Project. |
| | | | | Support deployment of |
| | | | |5,000 EVs in San Diego |
| | | | |region. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 9 |California|Training |$7.3 |Funding for EDD employee |
| | |and |million |and skills development |
| |Employment|Skills | |activities. Identify |
| | |Developmen| |regional needs for skills |
| |Developmen|t | |development and training to |
| |t | | |support advanced technology |
| |Department| | |fuel production, fueling |
| | | | |infrastructure and vehicle |
| | | | |manufacture. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 10 |Quallion |Electric |$6.9 |Develop pilot scales, |
| | |Battery |million |automated manufacturing |
| | | | |line for lithium-ion |
| | | | |battery cells and battery |
| | | | |packs. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVRP offers rebates up to $2500 for electric vehicles (EVs).
Listed below are rebates by vehicle type and model as of
December 31, 2012, according to ARB:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Vehicle Type and Model |Number of | Total |Percentage |
| | Rebates | Dollars | of Total |
| | | Allocated | Dollars |
AB 8
Page 14
| | | | Allocated |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Light-Duty Zero-Emission | 8,305 |$ | 66.61%|
|Vehicles | | 24,805,117 | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Nissan 2011-2012 Leaf | 6,720 |$ | 56.16%|
| | | 20,911,580 | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Tesla 2012 Model S | 449 |$ | 3.01%|
| | | 1,122,500 | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|smart USA 2011 ED Cabriolet | 338 | $ 663,000 | 1.78%|
|and Coupe | | | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Ford 2012-2013 Focus Electric | 269 | $ 672,500 | 1.81%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Tesla 2009-2011 Roadster | 154 | $ 655,000 | 1.76%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Mitsubishi 2012 i-MiEV | 95 | $ 190,000 | 0.51%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|BMW 2011 1 Series Active E | 70 | $ 52,500 | 0.14%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Toyota 2012 RAV4 EV | 67 | $ 167,500 | 0.45%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Honda 2013 Fit EV | 48 | $ 120,000 | 0.32%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Th!nk City 2011 | 47 | $ 111,037 | 0.30%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|CODA 2012 Sedan | 35 | $ 87,500 | 0.23%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Honda 2010-2011 FCX-Clarity | 10 | $ 45,000 | 0.12%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Mercedes-Benz 2011-2012 | 2 | $ 5,000 | 0.01%|
|F-Cell | | | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Wheego LiFe 2011 | 1 | $ 2,000 | 0.01%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Plug-In Hybrid Electric | 7,489 |$ | 30.13%|
|Vehicles | | 11,220,900 | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Chevy 2012 Volt Low Emission | 3,777 |$ | 15.21%|
|package | | 5,664,450 | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Toyota 2012 Prius Plug-In | 3,677 |$ | 14.78%|
|Hybrid | | 5,503,950 | |
AB 8
Page 15
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Ford CMAX Energi | 35 | $ 52,500 | 0.14%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Commercial Zero-Emission | 49 | $ 980,000 | 2.63%|
|Vehicles | | | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Smith 2009-2010 Newton1-9 | 39 | $ 780,000 | 2.09%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Navistar 2010 eStar 300 | 10 | $ 200,000 | 0.54%|
|series | | | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Zero-Emission Motorcycles | 121 | $ 135,100 | 0.36%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Zero 2009-2011 DS | 103 | $ 112,300 | 0.30%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Brammo 2010-2012 Enertia | 13 | $ 15,900 | 0.04%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Vetricx 2007-2011 | 5 | $ 6,900 | 0.02%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Neighborhood Electric | 87 | $ 97,150 | 0.26%|
|Vehicles | | | |
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|GEM 2009-2012 | 51 | $ 51,550 | 0.14%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Miles EV 2009-2010 ZX40S-AD | 35 | $ 44,100 | 0.12%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
|Vantage 2010 EVX1000 | 1 | $ 1,500 | 0.00%|
|------------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------|
| Total| 16,051 |$ |100.00% |
| | | 37,238,267 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The top EV by far is the Nissan Leaf, at 6,720 rebates as of
December 31, 2012. The current net price for the Leaf (after
$7500 federal tax credit and $2500 CVRP rebate) can be as low
as $20,000. The number two EV is the Tesla Model S (449
rebates as of December 31, 2012, though Tesla now reports over
3000 sold including 2013), with base prices ranging from
$70,000 to over $100,000. Survey data indicates that the
typical CVRP recipient earns over $150,000/year, drives 15-30
miles/day and owns at least one other non-EV car. According
to the DMV, the smog abatement fee that funds CVRP is not
collected from owners of EVs.
5)AB 118 lacks adequate measurement and verification of GHG and
AB 8
Page 16
criteria pollutant benefits. Though AB 118 is not a
regulatory program, the bill was enacted to support
development of vehicle technologies that reduce GHG emissions,
in furtherance of achieving the state's climate change goals.
However, AB 118's funding programs, such as ARFVTF, lack the
measurement and verification of emissions benefits that would
be expected of a regulatory program. It is not clear from
information supplied by the CEC about ARFVTF awards whether
the actual GHG emission reductions of funded projects are ever
accounted for, much less factored into the initial decision to
award funds.
6)Suggested amendments. The author and the committee may wish
to consider adopting technical and conforming amendments to
remove obsolete provisions and correct drafting errors, such
as deleting outdated surcharge amounts in the Moyer sections,
deleting obsolete dates, and replacing "board" with
"department" in the sections affecting CalRecycle (formerly
the Integrated Waste Management Board).
7)Related legislation. SB 11 (Pavley) is nearly identical to
this bill. SB 11 is pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
8)Prior legislation. SB 1455 (Kehoe) was nearly identical to
this bill. SB 1455 was approved by this committee by a vote
of 6-3 on August 29, 2012, and passed the Assembly 55-21, but
later failed on the Senate Floor 25-10.
9)Double referral. This bill was approved by the Assembly
Transportation Committee on April 8 by a vote of 10-3.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Lung Association of California (co-sponsor)
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(co-sponsor)
CALSTART (co-sponsor)
Achates Power
Aemetis, Inc.
Agricultural Council of California
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Altec Green Fleet
AB 8
Page 17
Associated General Contractors
Association of Global Automakers
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition
BIODICO
Bosch Rexroth Americas
California Air Resources Board
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners & Growers Association
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California Dairies, Inc.
California Electric Transportation Coalition
California Energy Commission
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
California Otolaryngology Society
California Public Health Association-North
California Rice Industry Association
California Service Station & Automotive Repair Association
California Thoracic Society
California Transit Authority
California Trucking Association
Caterpillar
ChargePoint
CleanWorld
Coalition for Clean Air
CODA Automotive
Contra Costa Council
Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
Cool Planet Energy Systems
CR&R Incorporated
Eaton Vehicle Group
ECOtality
Efficient Drivetrains
Electric Vehicles International
Environmental Defense Fund
Greenkraft
Harvest Power California
Health Care Without Harm
Honda North America
Hydrogenic Corporation
AB 8
Page 18
Linde North America
Los Angeles County Medical Association
Los Angeles County Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste
Management Task Force
Mission Motor Company
Motiv Power Systems
Move LA
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nisei Farmers League
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District
Odyne Systems
Otto Construction
Pacific Ethanol
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento Chapter
Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF-Bay Area Chapter
Propel Fuels
Proterra
Public Health Institute
Quallion
Quantum Technologies
Regional Asthma Management & Prevention
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
San Diego Regional Asthma Coalition
San Francisco Transportation Authority
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Sierra Energy & Sierra Railroad
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Smith Electric Vehicle
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southern California Public Power Authority
Synergex
Technology Partners
Tesla Motors
The Grant Farm
Total Transportation Services
TransPower
UPS, West Region
US Hybrid Corporation
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board
Vision Industries Corporation
Volvo Group North America
Waste Management/West
AB 8
Page 19
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Workplace Wellness L.A.
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
Zero Motorcycles
Opposition
Automobile Club of Southern California
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092