BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 64 (Author: Corbett) - Proposition 39: implementation.
Amended: April 23, 2013 Policy Vote: EU&C 8-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 6, 2013 Consultant: Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 64 would require the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission (CEC) to provide
financial assistance, from monies resulting from the passage of
Proposition 39, to school districts, cities, and counties to
install energy efficiency or clean energy technology in public
schools or municipal facilities.
Fiscal Impact:
Unspecified amounts from the Job Creation Fund (special
fund) for financial assistance for energy efficiency or
clean energy technology installation.
Unknown costs to the CEC from the Job Creation Fund for the
development and administration of programs.
Background: The California Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2012
(Proposition 39), which was approved by the voters in November
2012, requires most multistate businesses to determine their
California taxable income using a single sales factor method.
This change has the effect of increasing state corporate tax
revenue. For a five year period (FY 2013-14 through FY 2017-18),
Proposition 39 requires that half of the annual revenue raised
from the measure, up to $550 million, be transferred to a new
Clean Energy Job Creation Fund to support projects intended to
improve energy efficiency and expand clean energy generation.
Proposition 39 caps administrative costs at four percent of
total funding.
The Governor's proposed budget would exclusively allocate
Proposition 39 funds in the Job Creation Fund to energy
efficiency and alternative energy projects at K-14 schools. For
FY 2013-14, $400.5 million for K-12 schools and $49.5 million to
CCC would be appropriated on a per-student basis.
SB 64 (Corbett)
Page 1
Proposed Law: This bill would require the CEC to develop and
administer programs to provide financial assistance from the Job
Creation Fund to school districts, cities, and counties to
install energy efficiency or clean energy technology in public
schools or municipal facilities. Eligible projects would be
required to reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce total energy
use, and improve energy efficiency. Eligible projects would also
be required to be consistent with the state's loading order
which puts a priority on increasing energy efficiency. The CEC
would be required to adopt guidelines governing the program at a
publically noticed meeting with an opportunity for the public to
comment. Guideline adoption would be exempt from the
Administrative Procedure Act
Related Legislation:
SB 35 (Pavley) would require the California State
University (CSU) and the California Community Colleges
(CCC), and requests the University of California (UC), to
develop and implement a near- and long- term strategy for
energy savings projects. Status: Sen. Education, hearing
canceled.
SB 39 (de León) would require the Office of Public School
Construction to establish a school district assistance
program to distribute competitive grants for energy
efficiency upgrade projects pursuant to Proposition 39.
Status: Sen. Appropriations, May 13th hearing.
SB 729 (Fuller) states Legislative intent to enact
Legislation to implement Proposition 39. Status: Senate
Rules Committee.
AB 29 (Williams) would allocate $152 million over five
years to the CEC to administer financial assistance for the
UC, CSU, and CCC, to reduce energy demand and consumption.
Status: Assembly Utilities and Commerce, hearing canceled.
AB 39 (Skinner) would direct the CEC to develop and provide
financial assistance to K-12 schools and community colleges
to improve energy efficiency, install clean energy
technology, or make energy system improvements. Status:
Assembly Appropriations.
AB 114 (Salas) would direct the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency to award grants to eligible entities for
projects to provide job training on energy efficiency and
clean energy projects that are located in economically
disadvantaged communities. Status: Assembly Appropriations.
AB 239 (Hagman) would require the Office of Public School
SB 64 (Corbett)
Page 2
Construction to fund a zero-interest revolving loan program
and grant program for school districts to perform energy
efficiency retrofit or clean energy installation projects at
public schools. Status: Assembly Utilities and Commerce,
failed, reconsideration granted.
Staff Comments: This bill contains an unspecified appropriation
to the CEC for FY 2013-14 from the Proposition 39 Job Creation
Fund. The Senate Budget Subcommittees #1 and #2 had a joint
hearing on April 4, 2013 to discuss Proposition 39 spending,
however, no action was taken. Legislative action taken on the
Governor's proposed budget and numerous other bills that propose
spending of Proposition 39 dollars will determine how much
funding, if any, would be actually available for appropriation
by this bill.
Proposition 39 caps administrative costs from the Job Creation
Fund at four percent. If administrative costs exceed the cap,
the costs would either need to be absorbed by the administrating
agency or paid for with other funds. Staff believes it is a
reasonable assumption that four percent of the appropriation
would be sufficient for administrative costs unless the CEC is
required to run multiple programs from the Fund or if the CEC is
appropriated only a small amount of money to allocate. If there
are only a small amount of grant funds, administrative costs are
likely to be a higher percentage of the available funds. This
bill would allow the CEC to create numerous programs, but
encourages the CEC to build off of existing programs which can
assist with minimizing administrative costs.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, beginning at Section
11340 of the Government Code) prohibits state agencies from
issuing or enforcing any rule, regulation, order, or standard of
general application unless it has been issued as a regulation
under the APA. The purpose of the APA is to provide the public
with meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of
state regulations and to ensure that regulations are clear,
necessary, and legally valid. Staff notes that exempting the
CEC's guidelines from the APA may reduce administrative costs
for the CEC, at least initially, but possibly at the expense of
a less vigorous review of the guidelines than is provided under
the APA process.
SB 64 (Corbett)
Page 3