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