BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 476
                                                                  Page  1


           REPLACE  :  09/04/2013 Changes per consultant.

          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 476 (Steinberg)
          As Amended  July 2, 2013
          Majority vote 

           INSURANCE           11-0        APPROPRIATIONS      16-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Perea, Hagman, Bradford,  |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow,   |
          |     |Ian Calderon, Cooley,     |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |
          |     |Frazier,                  |     |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |
          |     |Beth Gaines, Gonzalez,    |     |Gomez, Hall, Holden,      |
          |     |Mitchell, Olsen,          |     |Linder, Pan, Quirk,       |
          |     |Wieckowski                |     |Wagner, Weber             |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Repeals the sunset date on three special assessments,  
          reduces one of the assessments, and revises recasts the  
          distribution of those funds collected.  Specifically,  this bill  :  
            

          1)Eliminates the January 1, 2015, sunset clause on three special  
            assessments that fund specific Department of Insurance (DOI)  
            activities.  The three assessments support:

             a)   The DOI's Fraud Division and Organized Automobile Fraud  
               Activity Interdiction Program.

             b)   The DOI's automobile insurance consumer protection  
               program.

             c)   The Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Program.

          2)Reduces the per vehicle assessment for automobile insurance  
            consumer protection activities from $0.30 per vehicle to $0.25  
            per vehicle until January 1, 2015, and thereafter authorizes  
            the Insurance Commissioner (commissioner) to further reduce  
            the assessment if it is generating more funds than needed to  
            fund its statutory purposes.

          3)Provides a six-month delayed implementation date for the  
            reduced assessment to allow insurers time to modify their  








                                                                  SB 476
                                                                  Page  2


            automated payment programs.

          4)Recasts the specified purposes to which the assessment funds  
            may be used.

          5)Eliminates an exclusion from the assessment for the Life and  
            Annuity Consumer Protection Program for life insurance  
            policies with face values of $15,000 or less.

          6)Requires the commissioner to include, in an annual report on  
            the use of the assessment funds, specified additional data  
            that would allow the Legislature and stakeholders to better  
            evaluate how well the programs are operating.

          7)Contains legislative findings and declarations in support of  
            the bill's purposes.




           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Requires insurers that sell automobile insurance to pay a  
            special purpose assessment of $0.30 per insured vehicle, and  
            specifies how the funds are to be distributed and spent.

          2)Requires insurers that sell automobile insurance to pay an  
            additional special purposes assessment of up to $0.50, as  
            determined by the commissioner, per insured vehicle, and  
            specifies how the funds are to be distributed and spent.

          3)Establishes the Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Fund, and  
            requires life insurers to pay up to $1.00, as determined by  
            the commissioner, for each individual life or annuity policy  
            sold, and specifies how the finds are to be distributed and  
            spent.

          4)Establishes a sunset clause on each of these fees of January  
            1, 2015.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:  

          CDI estimates this bill will result in a net revenue increase of  








                                                                  SB 476
                                                                  Page  3


          $426,000 in 2013-14 and a net decrease of $704,000 each year  
          thereafter. 

          1)Auto Consumer Assessment:

            This bill eliminates the January 1, 2015, sunset and reduces  
            the 30-cent assessment to 25 cents effective July 1, 2014, and  
            locks in the 25-cent assessment until January 1, 2016.   
            Effective January 1, 2016, the bill provides the Insurance  
            Commissioner the authority to annually adjust the assessment,  
            up to a 25-cent cap.

            Current annual revenues are $8.8 million and expenditures are  
            $7.5 million.  This bill will result in no fiscal change in  
            2013-14 and a revenue decrease of $1.5 million in 2014-15 and  
            each year thereafter. 


          2)Life and Annuity Consumer Protection (LACP) Assessment:
            This bill eliminates the January 1, 2015 sunset and requires  
            policies and annuities under $15,000 to be included in the  
            assessment.

            Current annual revenues are $861,000 and expenditures are  
            $3.675 million.  This bill would result in a revenue increase  
            of $426,000 in 2013-14 and $852,000 each year thereafter.  The  
            $1.00 assessment will not fully fund the LACP Program, but it  
            will increase the funding available for program investigators.

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Purpose  .  According to the author, the bill is intended to  
            ensure a continuous and reliable source of funding for the  
            various consumer protection programs funded by the  
            assessments, especially for the local district attorneys who  
            obtain grants from these programs.  These local assistance  
            funds are most effectively used when the recipients can rely  
            on ongoing funding, because they can retain experienced staff,  
            among other benefits.

           2)Background  .  The DOI is funded through the Insurance Fund, a  
            Special Fund that includes a number of subaccounts.  Unlike  
            some special funded agencies that have a primary revenue  
            source, and flexibility on how its funds are expended, the  








                                                                 SB 476
                                                                  Page  4


            Insurance Fund contains a broad range of revenue sources, many  
            of which have specific statutory restrictions on how the funds  
            can be used.  These restrictions include direction on how the  
            DOI can use the funds, as well as specific divisions of the  
            funds for various local assistance purposes, frequently local  
            assistance to county district attorneys for prosecution of  
            insurance-related crimes.  The DOI has in the past, as it is  
            doing in this bill, come to the Legislature asking to reduce  
            certain fees when it becomes clear that the available funds  
            exceed what can be reasonably spent on the specified purposes.

           3)Sunset clauses  .  Proponents, including DOI and local district  
            attorneys, argue that repeal of the sunset clauses is  
            appropriate because each of these programs has been in  
            existence for a number of years, and each time a sunset has  
            approached, the Legislature has extended it.  In light of the  
            needs for reliability of funding, especially for local  
            district attorneys, they argue that the repeal is appropriate.  
             In addition, recent amendments to the bill have increased the  
            reporting requirements, so that the Legislature and  
            stakeholders will have better information to evaluate how  
            funds are being used.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086


                                                                FN: 0002220