BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1071
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1071 (Atkins and Eduardo Garcia)
As Amended May 7, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+-------------------|
|Natural |9-0 |Williams, Dahle, | |
|Resources | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Hadley, Harper, | |
| | |McCarty, Rendon, Mark | |
| | |Stone, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+-------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, Gallagher, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires each board, department, and office within the
AB 1071
Page 2
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to establish a
policy on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) that benefits
environmental justice communities. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines SEP as an environmentally beneficial project that a
person subject to an enforcement action voluntarily agrees to
undertake in settlement of the action and to offset some of a
civil penalty.
2)Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB), Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR), and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) to establish policies on SEPs that benefit environmental
justice communities. The policies shall:
a) Include a public process to solicit potential supplemental
environmental projects from environmental justice
communities.
b) Allow a SEP to comprise up to 50% of an enforcement action
brought by a CalEPA board, department, or office.
c) Include an annual list of SEPs that may be selected to
settle an enforcement action.
3)Requires CalEPA to consolidate the list of SEPs and post the
list on its Web site.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
AB 1071
Page 3
1)Unknown, significant impacts resulting from penalty diversions.
Current policy developed by CalEPA suggests a cap of 25% for
penalty diversions to a SEP. This bill increases the cap to 50%
for SEP funding for environmental justice projects (all CalEPA
enforcement/penalty funds). Depending on the cost pressures on
the various funds, it is very likely other expenditures would
have to be reduced.
2)Absorbable administrative costs.
COMMENTS: According to the OEHHA, approximately eight million
Californians (21%) live in zip codes that are considered "highly
impacted" by environmental, public health, and socioeconomic
stressors. Nearly half of all Californians live within six miles
of a facility that is a significant greenhouse gas emitter (46%),
and they are disproportionately people of color (62%). Throughout
California, people of color face a 50% higher risk of cancer from
ambient concentrations of air pollutants listed under the Clean
Air Act. These impacts are felt by all Californians. ARB
estimates that air pollution exposure accounts for 19,000
premature deaths, 280,000 cases of asthma, and 1.9 million lost
work days every year.
In 2000, legislation [SB 89 (Escutia), Chapter 728, Statutes of
2000] required CalEPA to convene the Environmental Justice Working
Group and develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy.
In 2001, follow up legislation [SB 828 (Alarcon), Chapter 765,
Statutes of 2001] established a timeline for these requirements
and required CalEPA to update its report to the Legislature every
three years. In October of 2004, CalEPA released its
Environmental Justice Action Plan, but did not complete the
required updates for a decade.
AB 1071
Page 4
SB 535 (De Léon), Chapter 850, Statutes of 2012, required the Cap
and Trade Proceeds Investment Plan to direct a minimum of 25% of
the available moneys in the fund to projects that provide benefits
to identified disadvantaged communities; and, a minimum of 10% of
the available moneys in the fund to projects located within
identified disadvantaged communities. SB 535 also required CalEPA
to identify disadvantaged communities (i.e., environmental justice
communities). In order to accurately identify environmental
justice communities, OEHHA, on behalf of CalEPA, created the
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool
(CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen is a screening methodology
that can be used to help identify California communities that are
disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.
In February of 2014, CalEPA issued an Environmental Justice
Program Update, which included four main areas for future actions:
1) increase efforts to eliminate discrimination on the basis of
race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age,
sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or disability
in any program or activity conducted or funded by the state; 2)
develop guidance to promote a sound legal framework for CalEPA to
advance environmental justice goals and objectives; 3) lead an
agency-wide working group dedicated to increase compliance with
environmental laws in communities with relatively higher
environmental burdens; and, 4) add additional indicators to
CalEnviroScreen.
SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects that a violator
agrees to undertake as part of a settlement for an enforcement
action, but which the violator is not otherwise legally required
to perform. In 2003, CalEPA released guidelines for the use of
SEPs for its boards, departments, and offices. The guidelines
specify that an SEP must improve, protect, or reduce risks to
public health and the environment at large. The enforcing agency
must have the opportunity to help shape the scope of the project
AB 1071
Page 5
before it is implemented and the project must not be commenced
until the enforcing agency has identified a violation. Finally,
the SEP must not be required by a federal, state, or local law or
regulation. CalEPA's SEP guidelines suggest limiting the SEP to
25% of the total enforcement action.
Within CalEPA, ARB, DTSC, and the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) have adopted SEP policies. ARB and DTSC's policies
are consistent with CalEPA's guidelines and allow SEPs up to 25%
of the amount of the enforcement action. SWRCB, consistent with
authority granted by SB 1733 (Aanestad), Chapter 404, Statutes of
2006, allow SEPs up to 50% of the amount of the penalty.
CalEPA's 2012 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report
provides information on the use of SEPs in California. For
hazardous waste law violations, three cases totaling over $33.9
million, of which $5.5 million was used for SEPs. ARB assessed
just under $16.1 million in penalties, and $525,000 was used for
SEPs. In the report, SWRCB provided aggregated data for
"backlogged violations," which showed total penalties of over $25
million and $2.5 million for SEPs.
This bill would require CalRecycle, OEHHA, and DPR to adopt SEP
policies directed toward environmental justice communities and
specify that SEPs can account for up to 50% of an enforcement
action.
Analysis Prepared by:
Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN:
0000691
AB 1071
Page 6