BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 8
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: perea
VERSION:
8/12/13
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: August 20, 2013 URGENCY: YES
SUBJECT:
Air quality, alternative fuels, and vehicle technology funding
programs and local air district vehicle registration surcharges
DESCRIPTION:
This urgency bill:
Extends until January 1, 2024, extra fees on vehicle
registrations, boat registrations, and tire sales in order to
fund the AB 118, Carl Moyer, and AB 923 programs that support
the production, distribution, and sale of alternative fuels
and vehicle technologies, as well as air emissions reduction
efforts.
Suspends until 2024 the Air Resources Board's (ARB) authority
to require through regulation any fuel supplier provide
hydrogen fueling stations and instead allocates up to $220
million of these fee funds to construct and operate retail
hydrogen fueling stations.
Extends the authority of local air districts to impose vehicle
registration surcharges in their areas to achieve air emission
reductions from vehicles and off-road engines.
ANALYSIS:
Clean Fuels Outlet
ARB adopted its Clean Fuels Outlet (CFO) regulation to provide
fueling stations to meet the needs of those driving clean,
alternative fuel vehicles. When it first began work on the
regulation in 1990, ARB planned to use it as a tool to provide
methanol, ethanol, and compressed natural gas fueling stations
once a certain number of vehicles using those fuels were
certified in California. Those vehicles were not forthcoming,
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 2
and ARB last updated the regulation in 2000.
In January 2012, however, ARB considered and passed amendments
to the regulation to require major refiners and importers of
gasoline to provide hydrogen fueling stations when the number of
vehicles using hydrogen fuel reaches 10,000 within an air basin
or 20,000 statewide with specified adjustments. Refiners and
importers of gasoline would provide these hydrogen fueling
stations in proportion to their market share.
ARB filed the CFO regulation with the Office of Administrative
Law as required by state law, but then in December withdrew it
in order to pursue this legislation to dedicate public funds to
building a hydrogen fueling network, which would effectively
achieve the goal of the CFO regulation through public subsidy.
ARB is in the process of reintroducing the CFO rulemaking
package as a contingency measure in case this legislation fails.
This bill eliminates, until 2024, ARB's authority to enforce any
element of its existing CFO regulation or any other regulation
that requires any supplier of gasoline to construct, operate, or
to fund the construction or operation of any publicly available
hydrogen fueling station.
AB 118 Programs
AB 118 (Núñez), Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007, created three
programs:
The Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology
Program , which the California Energy Commission (CEC)
administers to provide grants, revolving loans, loan guarantees,
loans, or other appropriate funding measures to public agencies,
vehicle consortia, businesses, consumers, recreational boaters,
and academic institutions to develop and deploy innovative
technologies that transform California fuel and vehicle types to
help attain the state's climate change policies.
The Air Quality Improvement Program , which the ARB administers
in consultation with local air districts to provide competitive
grants to fund projects to reduce criteria air pollutants,
improve air quality, and support research to improve the air
quality impacts of alternative fuels and vehicles, vessels, and
equipment technologies.
The Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program , under which ARB, in
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 3
consultation with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR),
provides for the voluntary retirement of passenger vehicles and
light and medium duty trucks that are high polluters.
AB 118 provides, upon appropriation by the Legislature,
approximately $180 million annually until 2016 for these
programs. These funds come from additional fees on vehicle
registrations and vessel registrations. In addition, the CEC
received $10 million annually from the Public Interest Research,
Development, and Demonstration Fund, when that fund existed. It
was derived from a portion of electric utility rates to fund
research. Specifically, AB 118 raised the following fees on
vehicle and vessel registrations from July 1, 2008, until
January 1, 2016:
A $3 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee.
An $8 increase in the Smog Abatement Fee, paid to register
vehicles that are less than six model years old and therefore
exempt from smog check.
A $10 or $20 increase of the fee to originally register a
vessel in California. If a boat owner originally registers a
boat in an odd-numbered year, the increase is $10 ($10 to
$20); but if the boat owner originally registers it in an
even-numbered year, then the increase is $20 ($20 to $40).
(See Comment #9 below.)
A $5 increase of the fee for identification plates for
construction equipment, farm trailers, cotton trailers,
logging vehicles, and cemetery equipment. These plates are
required to operate the vehicles on public roads.
This bill :
1.Extends for eight additional years the fees on vehicles and
vessels that AB 118 imposed so that they continue until
January 1, 2024.
2.Limits consumer incentives that ARB or CEC provide from AB 118
funds to subsidize the purchase of vehicles to no greater
amount than the compensation a vehicle owner receives to
retire a vehicle through the Enhanced Fleet Modernization
Program (typically $1,500).
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 4
3.Requires the CEC to allocate $20 million annually until 2024
to fund at least 100 publicly available hydrogen fueling
stations through its AB 118 program. In order for CEC to fund
specific stations, each year ARB must aggregate information it
receives on the number of hydrogen-fueled vehicles that
manufacturers project to sell or lease over the next three
years, plus the number of hydrogen-fueled vehicles already
registered. Based on this information, ARB will evaluate the
need for, good locations for, and operating standards required
of hydrogen fueling stations and report its findings to the
CEC.
4.Permits CEC, after consulting with ARB, to allocate money away
from hydrogen fueling stations, if all $20 million in a year
is not needed to meet the need identified by ARB. CEC may
then allocate remaining funds to other projects within the
Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program.
5.Permits the CEC, after consulting with ARB, to cease to
provide subsidies to hydrogen fueling stations only if the
private sector is establishing stations without the need for
public subsidy.
6.Gives the CEC four years to encumber the $20 million annual
appropriation that the bill allocates for hydrogen fueling
stations and four more years to expend the funds to build
hydrogen stations. (For example, if $20 million is
appropriated for hydrogen stations through this bill in 2023,
then the CEC has until 2027 to award those funds to projects
and until 2031 to expend the funds as the stations get built.)
7.Directs CEC and ARB jointly to review and report annually on
progress toward establishing a hydrogen fueling network
beginning on December 31, 2015.
8.Requires both ARB and CEC to apply a benefit-cost score when
deciding to which projects each will award AB 118 funds, as
follows:
For the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle
Technology Program, the bill defines a benefit-cost score
as a project's expected or potential greenhouse gas
emissions reduction per dollar the CEC awards to a project.
The CEC shall rank projects proposed for funding awards
based on its solicitation criteria, but then shall give
additional preference to funding those projects with higher
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 5
benefit-cost scores. Thus, within an allocation, say for
hydrogen fueling stations, those projects seeking funds
that have greater reductions of greenhouse gas emissions
per dollar spent should receive AB 118 funding before those
with lower reductions.
For the Air Quality Improvement Program, the bill
defines benefit-cost score as the reasonably expected or
potential criteria pollutant emission reductions per dollar
ARB awards to a project and defines a project to be the
category investments that ARB identifies for funding. ARB
shall provide preference in awarding funding to those
projects with higher benefit-scores but allows ARB to
provide additional preference, as applicable, to projects
that:
reduce toxic air pollutants,
contribute to regional air quality,
promote alternative fuels and vehicle technologies,
achieve climate change benefits,
support market transformation of California's
vehicle or equipment fleet, and
leverage private capital.
Thus, ARB could apply the cost-benefit test to a category
of funding, and while it may not achieve the greatest
criteria pollutant reduction per dollar spent, still fund
it because ARB grants that category sufficient additional
preference. For example, ARB could award funds to rebates
for buyers of electric cars even though this category is
not the most effective at reducing criteria air pollutants,
because ARB gives the rebates sufficient additional
preference related to promoting alternative vehicle
technologies and supporting transformation of California's
vehicle fleet.
Carl Moyer Program
AB 1571 (Villaraigosa), Chapter 923, Statutes of 1999,
established the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards
Attainment Program through which ARB provides grants to offset
the incremental costs of purchasing or retrofitting engines in
order to reduce specified air emissions. The Carl Moyer program
originally received General Fund appropriations.
In 2004, AB 923 (Firebaugh), Chapter 707, expanded the Carl
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 6
Moyer program to cover additional pollutants and engines and
imposed a 75-cent per tire fee on tire sales to fund the Moyer
Program. Its provisions will sunset on January 1, 2015.
This bill :
1.Extends the Carl Moyer Program, as amended by AB 923, until
January 1, 2024, including the 75-cent fee on tire sales to
fund the program. (This bill also extends until 2024 a
25-cent tire fee that funds tire recycling programs.)
2.Requires ARB, no later than July 1, 2014, to convene, in
consultation with local air districts, a working group to
evaluate the policies and goals contained within the Carl
Moyer Program.
Air District Vehicle Registration Surcharge
Existing law imposes a basic vehicle registration fee of $46,
plus a $23 surcharge for additional personnel for the California
Highway Patrol, and authorizes local agencies to impose separate
vehicle registration fee surcharges in their respective
jurisdictions for a variety of special programs. AB 923
specifically authorizes, until January 1, 2015, local air
districts in which federal air quality standards are
consistently not met (i.e., "nonattainment areas") to levy a
surcharge of up to $6 on registration fees of motor vehicles
registered within that district. Funds from this surcharge must
be used to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
Legislation prior to AB 923 authorized the first $4 of the $6
surcharge to pay for reducing air pollution from motor vehicles
and carrying out related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and
technical studies necessary to implement the California Clean
Air Act of 1988. AB 923 authorized the next $2 and directed the
resulting revenue to specific strategies to achieving emission
reductions from motor vehicles and off-road engines.
AB 923 sunsets on January 1, 2015, after which the maximum
surcharge that air districts can impose will return to $4 per
registered vehicle.
This bill extends until January 1, 2024, the time during which
an air district may impose a surcharge of $6, rather than $4.
COMMENTS:
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 7
1.Purpose . The author introduced this bill because the San
Joaquin Valley (Valley), which he represents, remains one of
the worst air quality regions in the nation with ozone levels
continuing to exceed federal standards and leading the nation
with the most days of polluted air. Proponents note that the
whole state suffers from some of the worst air quality in the
nation, with over 70% of California's air pollution coming
from cars, trucks, trains, and other mobile sources and with
over 90% of residents living in counties with unhealthy air
during some parts of the year. In 2010, California had all
ten of the most polluted counties in the nation and four were
in the Valley. In addition, a recent study by the UC Davis
Center for Regional Change cited that, as a result of air
pollution generated by stationary agricultural and industrial
sources coupled with the automobiles and diesel trucks that
stream through the region's highways, residents of the San
Joaquin Valley suffer from high rates of asthma and other
respiratory ailments.
Despite significant improvements in emission reductions and
the toughest air regulations, the author asserts that we
cannot improve air quality and public health and achieve our
clean air goals of a 90 percent reduction in emissions by the
mid-2020s for the Valley and the state without incentives and
investments to accelerate the transition to a cleaner
transportation sector. He introduced this bill to provide
California a long-term transportation plan that achieves the
use of cleaner, more efficient transportation technologies
while meeting federal and state clean air mandates.
While California faces the challenge of meeting several state
and federal air quality and emission reduction mandates by the
mid-2020s, proponents point out that the state's three major
clean transportation programs -- AB 118, the Carl Moyer
Program, and the AB 923 Program -- are set to expire or to
lose their current funding source in the next few years.
This bill seeks to extend California's clean air and clean
vehicle incentive programs in order to meet clean air, public
health, climate, and economic development goals.
The author and supporters state that without extension of
these incentive programs, it would be extremely difficult for
California to meet its clean air, clean vehicle, and emission
reduction goals.
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 8
2.Too much for one bill ? This bill extends the funding and
existence of three programs created by AB 118, the Carl Moyer
Program, and local air districts' authority to impose
surcharges on vehicle registrations. This is a tremendous
amount of policy to include in a single bill. Such breadth
could limit the legislative review of each of these programs,
to which previous legislatures assigned sunset dates for the
purpose of ensuring that this Legislature could consider each
program's functions, statutory language, and funding as its
sunset date approaches. The proponents are moving two
identical bills, this bill and SB 11 (see related legislation
below), so have an opportunity to divide the subject matters
of these bills.
3.Abrogating a regulation . Typically, state agencies object
strenuously when the Legislature considers passing a bill to
override a regulation that the agency has adopted or is
working on adopting. This bill is unusual in that the ARB
strongly supports the bill and appears to have negotiated its
contents, which include proscribing ARB's current efforts to
amend its CFO regulation and prohibiting it from adopting any
regulation for the next 11 years that would require gasoline
suppliers to provide, fund, or operate a hydrogen fueling
station in this state.
This provision makes likely that, until selling hydrogen at
retail becomes a profit-making enterprise, the state will have
to subsidize both the capital and operating costs of hydrogen
fueling stations.
4.How much money ? The extension of the vehicle registration
fees, trailer fees, tire fees, and boat registration fees in
this bill will result in approximately $180 million per year
for an additional eight years for the AB 118-related fees and
approximately $30 million per year for an additional nine
years for the Carl Moyer Program. In addition, this bill
extends authority for the $2 surcharge that some air districts
have imposed on vehicles registered in their jurisdictions,
which according to DMV raises over $50 million each year.
This bill, therefore, will result in over $2 billion in
additional fees on California vehicle and boat owners between
2015 and 2023.
5.And to what end ? The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) in
its December 2012 report "Energy Efficiency and Alternative
Energy Programs" noted that it is difficult to isolate the AB
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 9
118 programs' effect on transforming California's vehicles and
fuels. Even in the CEC's own evaluations of its AB 118
program, the benefits shown reflect broad ranges of potential
greenhouse gas emission reductions and petroleum displacement.
In contrast, the Carl Moyer Program, which the bill also
extends, has long been based on achieving the most cost
effective, additional reductions in criteria air pollutants.
Over its years in existence, the Department of Finance and the
State Auditor have reviewed the program and made
recommendations - many of which were adopted - to improve that
program. In addition, ARB regularly reviews air districts'
implementation of the Carol Moyer Program. In general, it
appears that the Carl Moyer Program has effectively used the
funds made available to achieve reductions in air pollutants
beyond those achieved through regulation.
6.Trickling up ? Flat fees on vehicle registrations primarily
fund AB 118's programs. Thus, whether one is rich or poor,
the fees are the same, functioning as a sort of flat tax.
Awards of these funds, however, tend to go to the rich. For
example, the top ten recipients of CEC's AB 118 funds are:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Rank |Recipient | Project | Amount | Description |
| | | Type | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 1 |CALSTART |Alternativ|$18 |Administrator of various |
| | | e Fuel | million| alternative fuel vehicle |
| | | Vehicle | | programs and projects. |
| | | Dev. | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 2 |Air |Hydrogen |$11.2 |Construct 6 new hydrogen |
| | Products| Fueling | millio| fueling stations and 2 |
| | | Stations| n | upgrade stations at core |
| | | | | early market fuel cell |
| | | | | vehicle sales regions in |
| | | | | Southern California. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 3 |High Mt |Biogas |$11.0 |Landfill gas to |
| | Fuels | | millio| bio-liquified natural gas |
| |(Waste | | n | project at Ventura County |
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 10
| | Mgmt. | | | Landfill. |
| | and | | | |
| | Linde) | | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 4 |California|Technology|$10.3 |Provide employee training |
| | | | millio| funds to California |
| | Employme| Training| n | businesses with new |
| | nt | | | alternative fuel, fuel |
| | Training| | | infrastructure or vehicle |
| | Panel | | | products. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 5 |Propel |E85 |$10.1 |Construct and operate 101 |
| | | Retail | millio| E85 retail ethanol |
| | | Stations| n | stations throughout |
| | | | | California. |
| | | | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 6 |Tesla |Electric |$10.0 |Expand production capacity |
| | Motors | Car | millio| for the Model X |
| | | | n | cross-over electric SUV. |
| | | | | |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 7 |San |Natural |$9.3 |Purchase 202 heavy-duty |
| | Bernardino | Gas | millio| natural gas trucks and |
| | Associat| | n | construct two |
| | ed | | | publicly-accessible |
| | Gov'ts | | | liquefied natural gas |
| | | | | fueling stations at the |
| | | | | Ryder facilities in San |
| | | | | Bernardino and Orange |
| | | | | Counties. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 8 |ETEC/Nissa|Electric |$8.0 |Install 2,300 level 2 |
| | n | Chargers| millio| chargers and 30 DC fast |
| | | | n | 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 | millio| and skills development |
| | Employme| Skills | n | activities. Identify |
| | nt Dev. | Dev. | | regional needs for skills |
| | Dept. | | | development and training |
| | | | | to support advanced |
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 11
| | | | | technology fuel |
| | | | | production, fueling |
| | | | | infrastructure and |
| | | | | vehicle manufacture. |
|-----+----------+----------+--------+----------------------------|
| 10 |Quallion |Electric |$6.9 |Develop pilot scales, |
| | | Battery | millio| automated manufacturing |
| | | | n | line for lithium-ion |
| | | | | battery cells and battery |
| | | | |packs. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The California Energy Commission and the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee
ARB uses its AB 118 Air Quality Improvement Program funds
primarily for incentives to the owners of heavy duty diesel
vehicles to upgrade the vehicles and for incentives to
consumers to buy alternative-fueled vehicles through its Clean
Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP).
The CVRP provides another example of how the recipients of AB
118 funds tend to be well off. Survey data indicates that the
typical CVRP recipient earns over $150,000 a year and owns at
least one other non-EV car. ARB reports that through April of
this year it had provided the following rebates through the
CVRP:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vehicle Type and Model | Number of | Total Dollars |
| | Rebates |Allocated |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Light-Duty Zero-Emission | 11,552 |$32,905,488 |
| Vehicle | | |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|BMW 1 Series Active E | 70 | $52,500 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|CODA | 48 | $120,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Ford Focus Electric | 426 | $1,065,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Honda FCX-Clarity | 10 | $45,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Honda 2013 Fit EV | 72 | $180,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 12
|Mercedes-Benz F-Cell | 3 | $7,500 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Mitsubishi i-MiEV | 116 | $230,061 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Nissan LEAF | 7,924 | $23,920,390 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Smart ED | 338 | $663,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Th!nk City 2011 | 49 | $116,037 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Tesla Roadster | 156 | $660,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Tesla Model S - 60 kWh | 411 | $1,027,500 |
| battery | | |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Tesla Model S - 85 kWh | 1,713 | $4,282,500 |
| battery | | |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Toyota RAV4 EV | 215 | $534,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Wheego LiFe | 1 | $2,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Plug-In Hybrid Electric | 10,367 | $15,529,500 |
| Vehicle | | |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Chevy Volt Low Emission | 5,394 | $8,087,850 |
| package | | |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Ford CMAX Energi | 310 | $465,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Ford Fusion Energi | 75 | $112,500 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Honda Accord Plug-In | 15 | $22,500 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid | 4,573 | $6,841,650 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Zero Emission Motorcycle | 148 | $159,400 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Brammo | 19 | $21,300 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Vectrix | 5 | $6,900 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Zero | 124 | $131,200 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Neighborhood Electric | 93 | $102,550 |
| Vehicles | | |
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 13
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|GEM | 57 | $56,950 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Miles EV | 35 | $44,100 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Vantage | 1 | $1,500 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Commercial Zero Emission | 49 | $980,000 |
| Vehicles | | |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Navistar eStar 300 | 10 | $200,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Smith Newton 1-9 | 39 | $780,000 |
|----------------------------+----------------+--------------------|
|Total | 22,209 |$49,676,938 |
| | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: California Air Resources Board
The Nissan Leaf, at 7,924 rebates, is the number one recipient
of rebates, followed by the Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius Plug-in,
and the Tesla Model S. The current net price for the Leaf
(after $7,500 federal tax credit and $2,500 CVRP rebate) can
be as low as $20,000, the Volt and Prius start at about
$33,000, and the Tesla Model S ranges in price from $70,000 to
over $100,000.
7.Vote of the people . The people passed Proposition 26 in
November 2010 and so amended the California Constitution to
require that any "change in statute which results in a
taxpayer paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed
by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of
the two houses of the Legislature." While this bill extends
vehicle, tire, and vessel fees that are now taxes under Prop.
26, it also extends the sunset date from 2015 to 2024 on law
that allows air districts to impose an extra $2 surcharge on
vehicle registrations to fund specific air quality activities.
In several instances, county counsels have determined that
extension of local registration surcharges require, because of
Prop. 26, a two-thirds vote of the electorate within a county
and counties have taken renewal of local surcharges to the
ballot or let them lapse. Ultimately, the air districts'
counsels will have to determine what sort of local vote is
needed for the extension authorized here, but as this bill is
two-thirds vote, the Legislature could simply take action in
this bill to extend those fees.
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 14
8.Opposition . The Sierra Club opposes the provision of the bill
abrogating ARB's CFO regulation and eliminating ARB's
authority to adopt a similar regulation until 2024. The
Sierra Club asserts that if this provision remains in the bill
and becomes law, it will open the flood gates for additional
legislation overriding ARB's rulemaking authority, and
California will never meet its air pollution or greenhouse gas
reduction goals.
The Automobile Club of Southern California objects to fees and
taxes imposed on gasoline powered on-road vehicles being used
to pay for environmental mitigation stemming from off-road
equipment, heavy-duty vehicles, and school buses. The club
notes that this violates the "polluter pays" principle and
that it has consistently opposed similar proposals to impose
fees on passenger vehicles to fund cleanup programs for
non-vehicular and heavy duty diesel commercial vehicles.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association also opposes the
bill's extension of $2 billion tax extension through 2023
because it is regressive and because with two million
Californians out of work, the Legislature should be cautious
before passing more taxes onto consumers.
9.Double-referral . The Rules Committee has referred this bill
to both this committee and the Environmental Quality
Committee. Therefore, if this bill passes this committee, it
will be referred to the Committee on Environmental Quality.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
SB 11 (Pavley) is nearly identical to this bill. SB 11 passed
this committee on April 9 by a 6-2 vote with a commitment from
the author to make several amendments. She took those
amendments when the Senate Appropriations Committee considered
the bill in May. Awaiting hearing in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 54-20
Appr: 11-3
Nat Res: 6-2
Trans: 10-3
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 15
Wednesday, August
14, 2013.)
SUPPORT: American Lung Association (sponsor)
California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (sponsor) CALSTART (sponsor)
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Associated General Contractors
Association of Global Automakers
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition
Butte County Air Quality Management District
California Air Resources Board
California Association of School Transportation
Officials
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Biodiesel Alliance
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 Forestry Association
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
California Hydrogen Business Council
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Municipal Utility Association
California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
California Refuse Recycling Council
California Rice Industry Association
California Service Station & Automotive Repair
Association
California Transit Association
California Trucking Association
Californians Against Waste
Caltrain
Capstone Turbine Corporation
Center for Sustainable Energy
Clean Power Campaign
Coalition for Clean Air
Community Action to Fight Asthma
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 16
Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
Contra Costa Council
Electrification Leadership Council
Energy Independence Now
Environmental Defense Fund
Feather River Air Quality Management District
Honda
Hyandai Motor America
Linde North America
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Economic Development
Corporation
Madera County
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Murieta Valley Unified School District
Napa Valley Unified School District
Natural Resources Defense Council
Navistar, Inc.
Nisei Farmers League
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control
District
Sacramento Council of Governments
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Sempra Energy
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southern California Gas Company
County of Tulare
UPS
Waste Management
Western Growers Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Propane Gas Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
OPPOSED: Automobile Club of Southern California
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Sierra Club California
AB 8 (PEREA) Page 17