BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2292
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 2292
(Gordon) - As Amended April 4, 2016
SUBJECT: California Communities Environmental Health Screening
SUMMARY: Requires additional factors to be considered in the
California Communities Environmental Health Screening
(CalEnviroScreen). Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), by July 1, 2017, to further update the
identification of disadvantaged communities (DAC) through
the CalEnviroScreen for investment opportunities, to
include factors that include areas of the state that are
disproportionately impacted by:
a. High poverty rates;
b. High rent burden and severe rent burden where
households pay more than 50% of their household income
in gross rent; and,
AB 2292
Page 2
c. High cost of living.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires CalEPA to develop a methodology that identifies
priority community areas for investment opportunities
related to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).
Requires that these "priority community investment areas"
be identified and updated at least every two years based on
specified geographic, socioeconomic, and environmental
hazard criteria. To meet this requirement OEHHA has
developed CalEnviroScreen. (Health and Safety Code § 39711)
2) Requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) to develop and maintain a system of
environmental indicators to provide policymakers and the
public with information to evaluate the effectiveness of
CalEPA's programs in improving environmental quality and
protecting public health throughout the state, including
environmental quality and public health in low-income
communities and communities of color, and to assist CalEPA
in making budget decisions that address the most
significant environmental concerns, among other objectives
for the system. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 71080 (a))
3) Requires OEHHA to update its CalEnviroScreen 2.0 tool by
using any relevant environmental data relating to known
impacts of air pollution, water pollution, and toxic sites
on the environmental quality of the communities in the
California-Mexico border region. (PRC § 71090 (b)(1))
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
AB 2292
Page 3
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "SB 535 called for
the formation of a tool to use both environmental and economic
factors to identify disadvantaged communities for investment
opportunities. The current methodology of that tool,
CalEnviroScreen, does not include a number of metrics important
to capture poverty and economic disadvantage and subsequently
may not completely fulfill the mission of SB 535 to classify
California's most impacted and disadvantaged communities.
Currently, CalEnviroScreen only includes one metric out of 19 to
reflect poverty, and does not factor in other important economic
factors such as cost of living or rent burden. As we are
currently in the midst of a housing crisis, there are some
Californians paying more than half of their income on rent.
Ultimately, this results in a tool which does not capture some
of California's most chronically neglected and poverty-stricken
neighborhoods, and we believe that the inclusion of additional
factors that focus on economic disadvantage would make
CalEnviroScreen a tool to more effectively tackle issues of
environmental justice."
Senate Bill (SB) 535: Pursuant to the authorities provided in AB
32 (Nuñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Air
Resources Board implemented the cap-and-trade program as one of
several strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funds
received from the program are deposited into the GGRF and
appropriated by the Legislature. They must be used for programs
that further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 535 (De Léon, Chapter 830,
Statutes of 2012), directing at least 25% of the funds from the
AB 2292
Page 4
GGRF to go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged
communities (DACs), and requiring a minimum of 10% of the funds
to be directed to projects located within those communities.
SB 535 directed CalEPA to identify DACs based on geographic,
socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria,
including:
a) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental
pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative
public health effects, exposure, or environmental
degradation; and,
b) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low
income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership,
high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of
educational attainment.
The intent of SB 535 was, specifically, to direct resources to
the state's most impacted and disadvantaged communities to
ensure activities taken pursuant to AB 32 will provide economic
and health benefits to these communities, and to ensure that
investments made per AB 32 will achieve additional emission
reductions and mitigate direct health impacts on California's
most impacted DACs.
CalEnviroScreen: To comply with the requirements set forth in SB
535, OEHHA developed CalEnviroScreen (also known as CES 2.0),
which uses existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic
data to determine the extent to which communities across the
state are burdened by and vulnerable to pollution.
CalEnviroScreen uses the following metrics to identify the 25%
most disadvantaged census tracts:
Pollution burden indicators: ozone, PM2.5 (particulate matter
<2.5 microns), diesel, drinking water, pesticides, toxic
releases, traffic, cleanups, groundwater, hazardous waste,
AB 2292
Page 5
impaired waters, and solid waste; and,
Population characteristics: age, asthma, low birth weight, low
education, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Concerns with the current CalEnviroScreen: According to the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the current
version of the CalEnviroScreen is ill-suited for allocating GGRF
funds to DACs. Specifically, the BAAQMD believes the tool, with
its complex multivariate analysis of 19 variables, fails to
identify as disadvantaged hundreds of Bay Area census tracts
that are clearly very disadvantaged in the real world. The
BAAQMD asserts that, "a single variable, even extreme poverty,
is heavily watered down by the existing CalEnviroScreen."
As it relates to the San Francisco Bay Area region, a March 2015
research brief by the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional
Studies, Poverty in the San Francisco Bay Area, found that
federal poverty statistics may underestimate economic hardship
in the region. The report shows that using federal definitions
of the poverty line may not be appropriate in the San Francisco
Bay area because an inordinate percentage of income is spent on
severe rent and high cost of living, such that these factors
must be considered separately to income in California to truly
capture economic burden.
AB 2292
Page 6
Some stakeholders are concerned that DACs are being left out
under the current CalEnviroScreen. According to the BAAQMD and
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), "CES2.0 only
identifies 85 Bay Area census tracts as disadvantaged- 4% of the
statewide total - even though we have 17% of the state's
households living in poverty, when adjusted for cost of
living?38% of the Bay Area's census tracts identified as DAC's
by CES2.0 have median household income above 80 percent of the
statewide median? [T]his same misalignment occurs across the
state; hundreds of low income communities are excluded, while
far more affluent ones are included."
The MTC found that in Sacramento, only 28% of lower income
residents are included in CES2.0, while in San Diego only 13% of
lower income residents are included. In these two regions
combined, CES2.0 excludes 1.3 million lower income residents.
Even in Los Angeles County, the MTC states, where CES2.0
corresponds more closely with income, 27% of lower-income census
tracts are excluded - totaling 259 census tracts, home to over
955,000 residents.
Inclusion of poverty as a new indicator: AB 2292 proposes to
include "high poverty rates" as a new indicator in the CalEnviro
Screen.
The October 2014 CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0 Report stated that,
"[p]overty is an important social determinant of health.
AB 2292
Page 7
Numerous studies have suggested that impoverished populations
are more likely than wealthier populations to experience adverse
health outcomes when exposed to environmental pollution."
It continues, "[b]ecause low socioeconomic status often goes
hand-in-hand with high unemployment, the rate of unemployment is
a factor commonly used in describing [DACs]. On an individual
level, unemployment is a source of stress, which is implicated
in poor health reported by residents of such communities. Lack
of employment and resulting low income often oblige people to
live in neighborhoods with higher levels of pollution and
environmental degradation."
Under the current version of CalEnviroScreen, data from the
American Community Survey (ACS), which is an ongoing survey of
the U.S. population conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, are
used to assess poverty. The ACS releases results annually based
on a sub-sample of the population and includes more detailed
information on socioeconomic factors such as poverty. Multiple
years of data are pooled together to provide more reliable
estimates for geographic areas with small population sizes. The
most recent results available at the census tract scale are the
5-year estimates for 2008-2012.
Consistent with that, the aforementioned research brief, Poverty
in the San Francisco Bay Area, found that, "the standard
definition of poverty is still a useful tool to determine the
AB 2292
Page 8
extent of severe economic hardship. And, since the federal
poverty statistics are reported regularly and at a fine
geographic level, they enable a highly detailed analysis over
time and within regions."
While CalEnviroScreen 2.0 currently includes poverty as an
indicator, according to the author, codifying poverty under this
bill clarifies that poverty shall be a standalone indicator, in
addition to the existing indicators and proposed indicators
under this bill. However, as the bill is written, just requiring
CalEnviroScreen to include areas of the state that are
disproportionately impacted by high poverty rates may not
accomplish the author's intent. The author may wish to consider
including more detail on the inclusion of high poverty rates as
a factor to ensure his intent is realized.
Inclusion of high rent burden as a new indicator: The intent of
AB 2292, as understood, is to make sure communities with high
poverty rates that are in high cost of living regions are
recognized by the CalEnviroScreen. Specifically, AB 2292
proposes including three new metrics, including high rent burden
and severe rent burden where households pay more than 50% of
their household income in gross rent.
Under state law, per SB 535, CalEPA is required to consider
concentrations of residents in areas that are low income, high
unemployment, low levels of homeownership, and high rent burden.
AB 2292
Page 9
Currently, federal census data does not indicate rent burdens
higher than 50% of income, nor does it provide data at a
gradient, county level. However, OEHHA is currently evaluating
how to meet the intent of SB 535 with regards to inclusion of
high rent burden for its release of CalEnviroScreen version 3.0.
While mandating inclusion of "high rent burden and severe rent
burden where households pay more than 50% of their household
income in gross rent" may be consistent with the evaluations
OEHHA is currently working on, it may presume the ability to
include an accurate metric or reliable set of data before OEHHA
completes its own investigation and opens a public comment
period. The committee may wish to consider an amendment to
clarify that these factors shall be included where feasible.
Inclusion of high cost of living as a new indicator: As with the
author's intent for including poverty as a new indicator,
specifically including high cost of living as a definitive
indicator underscores the intent of SB 535 to adequately ensure
that socioeconomics are appropriately accounted for in the
CalEnviroScreen.
AB 2292
Page 10
As such, there are other state metrics used for evaluating
poverty, rent and cost of living that could inform the revisions
to the CalEnviroScreen envisioned by this bill.
For instance, similar to how the CalEnviroScreen is used to
determine DACs for GGRF investments, the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (Department) uses State
Income Limits (SIL) to determine applicant eligibility (based on
level of household income) and to calculate affordable housing
cost for applicable housing assistance programs.
The Department is required under current law to update the SIL
for the low, very-low, and extremely-low income categories when
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
updates its Section 8 program income limits. The Department has
developed a metric for incorporating, by county, median income,
cost of living, and housing costs into determining Section 8
housing, and updates this metric (SIL) every year.
Information like this could inform the inclusion of the new
indicators required under AB 2292.
Recent changes: The CalEnviroScreen was updated pursuant to AB
1059 (E. Garcia, Chapter 584, Statutes of 2015) in October 2014
to include additional data along the US-Mexico border.
In addition, the scoring for many of the previously existing
AB 2292
Page 11
indicators was also adjusted. For example, unemployment has been
associated with poor health outcomes and psychosocial stress in
communities. An indicator using the 5-year estimate of the
unemployment rate (2008-2012) was included as a Socioeconomic
Factor in CalEnviroScreen 2.0.
OEHHA plans to release another updated version of
CalEnviroScreen (version 3.0) sometime this year.
GGRF Budget: The 2015-2016 Budget allocated a total of $1.4
billion from the GGRF, and the Governor's proposed FY 2016-2017
Budget includes $1 billion in GGRF expenditures. The remaining
2015-2016 revenues, along with 2016-2017 revenues, are available
for appropriation this year. Including ongoing accruing
revenues, there is currently more than $3 billion in
cap-and-trade revenues in the GGRF for investments. That could
result in around $750 million in investments in projects that
benefit disadvantaged communities as identified by
CalEnviroScreen. Ensuring the CalEnviroScreen accurately
implements the intent of SB 535 is important to many communities
hoping to reap the investment benefits.
The 2016 Annual Report of Cap and Trade Auction Proceeds
includes an analysis of funds spent within and benefiting
disadvantaged communities, excluding high speed rail spending.
According to the report, 39% of expenditures were for projects
located within disadvantaged communities and 51% of the overall
funding benefited disadvantaged communities.
Modifications to the CalEnviroScreen could result in communities
not previously identified as a DAC being eligible for GGRF
AB 2292
Page 12
investments, while other communities that were previously
identified as eligible could be found to be ineligible.
Technical amendment: In order to ensure the proposed factors are
based on the best available data, the Committee may wish to
amend the bill as follows:
On page 3, line 14, the bill should be amended as follows:
(b) No later than July 1, 2017, the California Environmental
Protection Agency shall update the identification of
disadvantaged communities for investment opportunities related
to this chapter, as established pursuant to subdivision (a),
to include factors, based on best available data, that
include, but need not be limited to, areas of the state that
are disproportionately impacted by any of the following:
Related legislation:
1) AB 1550 (Gomez) would require that 25% of the GGRF be
spent on projects located within DACs, and requires that an
additional 25% be spent on projects that benefit low-income
households. This bill was heard in the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee on April 4, where it was approved on a
7 - 0 vote.
2) AB 1815 (Alejo) would require the GGRF Investment Plan
to allocate technical assistance funds to CalEPA to assist
DACs and low-income communities in developing greenhouse
gas reduction project funding proposals. This bill was
heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April
4, where it was approved on a 7 - 2 vote.
AB 2292
Page 13
3) AB 1968 (Steinorth) would require that 10% of the
funding continuously appropriated to the Affordable Housing
and Sustainable Communities Program to be allocated to
certain cities and counties. It has been referred to the
Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Sierra Club California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965
AB 2292
Page 14