BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Senator Wieckowski, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Beall | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |-----------+---------------------+-------------+-----------------| |Version: |12/1/2014 |Hearing |3/18/2015 | | | |Date: | | |-----------+---------------------+-------------+-----------------| |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Rebecca Newhouse | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1. Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to determine the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt GHG emissions reductions measures by regulation. ARB is authorized to include the use of market-based mechanisms to comply with these regulations. (Health and Safety Code §38500 et seq.) 2. Establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) in the State Treasury, requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected pursuant to a market-based mechanism be deposited in the fund, and requires the Department of Finance, in consultation with the state board and any other relevant state agency, to develop, as specified, a three-year investment plan for the moneys deposited in the GGRF. (Government Code §16428.8) 3. Requires moneys from the GGRF be used to facilitate the achievement of reductions of GHG emissions in this state consistent with the SB 9 (Beall) Page 2 of ? California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and authorizes those funds to be allocated for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Annual budget appropriations of GGRF funds are required to be consistent with the investment plan. (HSC §39712) 4. Requires the GGRF investment plan to allocate, at a minimum, 25% of the funds to benefit disadvantaged communities, and to allocate 10% of GGRF monies within disadvantaged communities. (HSC §39713) 5. Requires the ARB, in consultation with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), to develop funding guidelines for all agencies that are appropriated monies from the GGRF. These guidelines must include a component for how administering agencies should maximize benefits for disadvantaged communities. (HSC §39715) 6. Requires agencies, prior to expending any GGRF monies, to prepare an expenditure record describing the expenditure, and to make other specified determinations. The ARB is required to develop guidance on reporting and quantification methods for state agencies expending GGRF to comply with the expenditure record requirements. (HSC §16428.9) 7. Establishes the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, funded through a continuous appropriation of the GGRF, to fund capital improvements and operational investments that reduce GHG emissions and modernize California's intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems to achieve specified goals. The program establishes a programmatic goal to provide at least 25% of available funding to projects that provide a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to disadvantaged communities, and among other things, requires: A. That eligible projects demonstrate they will achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions. B. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), in evaluating grant applications for funding, consider: (1) Specified cobenefits, including reduction of auto vehicles miles traveled, promotion of housing SB 9 (Beall) Page 3 of ? development near rail stations, expanding existing rail and transit systems, implementation of clean vehicle technology, promotion of active transportation, and improvements to public health. (2) The project priorities developed through the collaboration of two or more rail operators and any memoranda of understanding between state agencies and local or regional rail operators. (3) Geographic equity. (4) Consistency with the adopted sustainable communities strategies and the recommendations of regional agencies. C. Applications for grants be submitted to the CalSTA for evaluation in accordance with procedures and program guidelines adopted by the agency and requires CalSTA to submit a list of recommended projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for awarding grants. D. CalSTA to develop draft program guidelines containing selection criteria prior to adoption and specifies public participation and notice requirements. This bill: 1. Modifies the objective of the program to fund large transformative capital improvements, instead of operational investments, with a total cost exceeding one hundred million dollars. 2. Requires CalSTA to consider the extent to which a project reduces GHG emissions for prioritizing and recommending projects for funding. 3. Removes the requirement for CalSTA, when considering an applicant's consistency with adopted sustainable community strategies, to also consider recommendations from regional agencies. 4. Requires CalSTA to additionally consider the following when evaluating grant applications: SB 9 (Beall) Page 4 of ? A. Other cobenefits including enhanced connectivity, integration and coordination of state and local transit systems, and whether the project provides a direct connection to the high-speed rail system. B. The extent to which a project has supplemental funding from non-state sources. C. The extent to which a project will increase ridership. 5. Authorizes an eligible applicant to submit a multiyear funding application and authorizes CalSTA to make multiyear funding commitments for projects. 6. Requires applicants: A. Make determinations regarding project purpose, intended scope, intended funding sources and project completion schedule; B. Specify the phases of work for which they are seeking allocation; C. Identify the sources and timing of all funds required to undertake and complete any phase of a project, and describe intended sources and timing of funds to complete subsequent phases of the project. 7. Requires CalSTA, by July 1, 2016, to develop a five-year estimate of revenues of the program in annual increments and adopt an initial program of projects for those five years, and requires CalSTA to adopt subsequent programs of projects, as a statement of intent for allocation and expenditure, no later than April 1 of each even-numbered year. 8. Requires CalSTA to enter into and execute a multiyear funding agreement with an eligible applicant for a multiyear project, and requires the agreement to include a proposed schedule of funds expected by year, and authorizes that agreement to extend beyond the five fiscal years covered by the program of projects. 9. Authorizes a lead applicant agency to apply to CTC for a SB 9 (Beall) Page 5 of ? letter of no prejudice in order to allow the lead applicant to expend their own funds for the project and be eligible for future reimbursement from the GGRF. 10.Requires the lead applicant agency, if their letter of no prejudice is granted by CTC, to be reimbursed for funds they have expended for the project, under specified conditions. 11.Authorizes CTC, in consultation with other specified entities, to develop guidelines to implement the no prejudice provisions. Background Cap-and-trade auction revenue. ARB conducted nine cap-and-trade auctions between November 2012 and November 2014, generating a total of $970 million in proceeds to the state. A tenth auction was held jointly with Quebec in February of this year, but the proceeds have not yet been published. Several bills in 2012, and one in 2014, provided legislative direction for the expenditure of auction proceeds including SB 535 (de León) Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012, AB 1532 (J. Pérez) Chapter 807, Statutes of 2012, SB 1018 (Budget Committee) Chapter 39, Statutes 2012, and SB 862 (Budget Committee) Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014. SB 535 (de León) Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012, requires that 25% of auction revenue be used to benefit disadvantaged communities and requires that 10% of auction revenue be invested in disadvantaged communities. AB 1532 (J. Pérez) Chapter 807, Statutes of 2012, directs the Department of Finance to develop and periodically update a three-year investment plan that identifies feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reduction investments to be funded with cap-and-trade auction revenues. AB 1532 specifies that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through strategic planning and development of sustainable infrastructure projects, are eligible investments of GGRF. SB 1018 (Budget Committee) Chapter 39, Statutes of 2012, created the GGRF, into which all auction revenue is to be deposited. The legislation requires that before departments can spend monies SB 9 (Beall) Page 6 of ? from the GGRF, they must prepare a record specifying: (1) how the expenditures will be used, (2) how the expenditures will further the purposes of AB 32 (Nuñez, Pavley) Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, (3) how the expenditures will achieve GHG emission reductions, (4) how the department considered other non-GHG-related objectives, and (5) how the department will document the results of the expenditures. SB 862 (Budget Committee) Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014, requires the ARB to develop guidelines on maximizing benefits for disadvantaged communities by agencies administering GGRF funds, and guidance for administering agencies on GHG emission reduction reporting and quantification methods. Legal consideration of cap-and-trade auction revenues. The 2012-13 budget analysis of cap-and-trade auction revenue by the Legislative Analyst's Office noted that, based on an opinion from the Office of Legislative Counsel, the auction revenues should be considered mitigation fee revenues, and their use requires that a clear nexus exist between an activity for which a mitigation fee is used and the adverse effects related to the activity on which that fee is levied. Therefore, in order for their use to be valid as mitigation fees, revenues from the cap-and-trade auction must be used to mitigate GHG emissions or the harms caused by GHG emissions. In 2012, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the ARB claiming that cap-and-trade auction revenues constitute illegal tax revenue. In November 2013, the superior court ruling declined to hold the auction a tax, concluding that it's more akin to a regulatory fee. AB 32 auction revenue investment plan. The first three-year investment plan for cap-and-trade auction proceeds, submitted by Department of Finance, in consultation with ARB and other state agencies in May of 2013, identified sustainable communities and clean transportation as one of the key sectors that provide the best opportunities for achieving the legislative goals and supporting the purposes of AB 32. The plan recommended the aforementioned sector receive the largest allocation of funds from the GGRF, but did not specify a monetary amount. Budget allocations. The 2014-15 budget allocates $832 million in GGRF revenues to a variety of transportation, energy, and SB 9 (Beall) Page 7 of ? resources programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Various agencies are in the process of implementing this funding. The budget agreement specifies how the state will allocate most cap-and-trade auction revenues in 2015-16 and beyond. For all future revenues, the legislation appropriates 25% for the state's high-speed rail project, 20% for affordable housing and sustainable communities grants, 10% to intercity capital rail projects, and 5% for low-carbon transit operations. The remaining 40% is available for annual appropriation by the Legislature. The Governor's proposed 2015-16 budget assumes the receipt of $650 million in cap-and-trade auction revenues in 2014-15 and $1 billion in 2015-16. The Governor's proposed 2015-16 cap-and-trade expenditures are largely the same as the 2014-15 plan, albeit with larger amounts allocated for affordable housing and sustainable communities grants, the transit and intercity rail capital program, and the low-carbon transit operations. SB 862 (Budget Committee), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014, created several statutory programs to implement the budget appropriations, including the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. This program provides operating and capital assistance to transit agencies to reduce GHG emissions and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Eligible projects include expanded, new, or enhanced transit services; conversion or retrofit of transit vehicles and equipment to zero-emission; expanded intermodal transit facilities; and infrastructure to support zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles. The 2014-15 budget provides for a continuous appropriation of 5% of cap-and-trade funds for this program beginning in 2015-16. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and ARB are currently reviewing applications. The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program is not a competitive program, but based on project eligibility according to statute and program guidelines and an established transportation funding formula. The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds capital improvements for GHG emission reductions that expand and improve rail service, SB 9 (Beall) Page 8 of ? and integrate state and local rail and other transit systems, including the high-speed rail system. The 2014-15 budget provided for a continuous appropriation of 10%, or $25 million, of cap-and-trade funds to this program beginning in 2015-16. With these funds, as well as the 10% of GGRF projected for the 2015-16 budget, CalSTA is currently soliciting applications for almost $125 million in grants for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. CalSTA is required to evaluate applications, and then prepare a list of projects recommended for funding to be used by the California Transportation Commission in awarding grant monies. CalSTA released draft guidelines for the program in December 2014, and finalized them on February 6th. The guidelines describe the policy, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption and management of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The guidelines have project applications due to Caltrans by April 10, of this year. By late August, CalSTA will present a project list to the CTC for subsequent funding. The guidelines state that it is CalSTA's intent to adopt an initial multiyear program of projects covering a minimum of two years of estimated funding. The Division of Transportation Programming at Caltrans describes "programming" as "the commitment of transportation funds to be available over a period of several years to particular projects." Given that transportation projects take a number of years to develop and build, a multiyear program of projects provides some level of predictability to allow agencies to plan their projects. Thus, a program of projects is fairly common in the world of transportation. The guidelines also note that "CalSTA will also make some funding available for demonstration projects that are smaller scale efforts with great potential to be expanded. These may include projects such as a novel approach to attracting new riders or a test of a concept related to integrated ticketing, as well as intercity rail or transit effectiveness or operational studies that are expected to have elements that can be implemented with little or no capital investment (such studies must result in a reduction in net greenhouse gas SB 9 (Beall) Page 9 of ? emission)." SB 862 establishes a goal for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program of providing at least 25% of available funding to projects that provide a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to disadvantaged communities. SB 862 also requires the ARB, in consultation with CalEPA, to develop funding guidelines for all agencies that are appropriated monies from the GGRF. These guidelines must include a component for how administering agencies should maximize benefits for disadvantaged communities. ARB draft SB 535 guidelines. ARB released a revised draft of these SB 535 guidelines in August of last year. ARB guidance for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program specify criteria for evaluating whether projects provide benefits to or within disadvantaged communities. New transit lines, more frequent service, greater capacity on existing lines that are nearing capacity, improved reliability for routes in disadvantaged communities, as well as bus rapid service for disadvantaged community residents, all count towards the 10% of GGRF monies that must be spent within disadvantaged communities. The guidelines also specify criteria for determining whether projects "provide benefits to disadvantaged communities." Some of these criteria include whether projects provide improved local bus transit service or improved connectivity for riders using stations or stops that are accessible by walking within onehalf mile of a disadvantaged community, or if the project will increase intercity rail, commuter bus or rail transit ridership, with at least 25% of new riders from disadvantaged communities; or whether projects result in at least 25% of project work hours performed by residents of a disadvantaged community. Comments 1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "Transportation funding available under the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program should be invested in projects that maximize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to ensure California meets its climate goals set forth by AB 32. "If California is to be successful in achieving significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the transportation SB 9 (Beall) Page 10 of ? sector, a necessary outcome since the transportation sector accounts for roughly 40% of these emissions, it is important to ensure that cap-and-trade auction proceeds can be invested in transit capital expansion projects that will have the most impact. SB 9 is intended to focus the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program on funding a smaller number of large-scale transit expansion projects that would result in substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The changes proposed in SB 9 would result in a more desirable outcome for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, as opposed to scattering small amounts of money around to a very large number of projects-an approach that typically gets used for transportation competitive grant programs, but would not be effective in the case of expending cap-and-trade dollars, given the emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "SB 9 would allow the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program to accommodate large-scale transit expansion projects seeking more substantive sums of cap-and-trade dollars by enabling CalSTA to program, commit and allocate funding over multiple fiscal years. Accommodating such projects would not be possible if CalSTA were to initiate a new competitive process for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program every single fiscal year and program only one year's worth of funding at a time because a public transit agency would have to resubmit an application for the same project and compete year after year in order to obtain the amount of cap-and-trade that it needs. In turn, this uncertainty would not allow a public transit agency to use cap-and-trade revenues to leverage federal dollars or to secure financing for its large-scale project." 2. Prioritizing GHG emissions reductions. The program currently requires that eligible projects require GHG emission reductions. SB 9 expands on this requirement by ensuring that CalSTA prioritizes projects for funding based on the extent to which they will reduce GHG emission reductions. 3. Shifting the focus: larger, multiyear grants, but fewer projects. According to the CalSTA guidelines, CalSTA intends to fund a small number of transformational projects that improve the statewide transportation network in the first programming cycle. These may include, for example, both SB 9 (Beall) Page 11 of ? lowercost pr4.ojects focused on integration, reliability and enhancement of service, and highercost capital expansion projects. SB 9 shifts the focus away from lower-cost, smaller projects, since the bill requires eligible projects be over $100,000,000, and requires CalSTA to develop five-year plans for the allocation and expenditure of funds. These amendments are designed to concentrate funds among a few, large, "transformative" projects, and to further differentiate the program from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program that awards grants to reduce GHG emissions through operating and capital assistance for transit agencies. Indeed, the $100 million threshold established by SB 9 would significantly reduce the number of projects that can be funded with monies available to the program through cap-and-trade auction revenue (currently $125 million from the 2014-15 budget appropriation and the 2015-16 budget proposal). However, not all transformative projects to improve or modernize intercity rail or transit may exceed $100,000,000. Does the minimum expenditure requirement unnecessarily disqualify less expensive, competitive projects that may achieve the goals of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, result in improved transit experiences, and significantly reduce GHG emissions? According to the author, they are currently in discussions with stakeholders to address this concern. 5. Authorize, instead of require, multiyear funding. The bill requires CalSTA to enter into and execute a multiyear funding agreement with an eligible applicant for a multiyear project from the five-year program of projects developed by CalSTA (page 6, line 14). As this requirement does not allow for any agency discretion, the Committee may wish to amend the bill to authorize, not require, CalSTA to award multiyear funding agreements for these projects. 6. Technical Amendment. An amendment is needed to correct a drafting error on page 2, line 6, that incorrectly refers to one hundred million dollars as $1,000,000. Related/Prior Legislation SB 862 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014) SB 9 (Beall) Page 12 of ? established requirements for ARB to develop guidelines for agencies administering GGRF funds. SOURCE: Author SUPPORT: Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Silicon Valley Leadership Council OPPOSITION: TransForm ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters note that SB 9 would allow CalSTA to accommodate larger-scale projects by programming and allocating their funding over multiple fiscal years, and that these types of projects could not be accommodated if CalSTA were to initiate a new competitive process every single fiscal year and program only one year's worth of funding at a time. They also note that these larger scale projects would result greater GHG emission reductions than the current design of the program, which they describe as spreading a small amount of money around to a large number of projects. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents fear that requiring the funds go to projects over $100 million, and giving priority to nonstate funding will eliminate from eligibility many projects within disadvantaged communities who currently lack the funding for even smaller projects that target high propensity riders and provide desperately needed transportation choices. They also note that these changes would significantly alter the program, and they urge the inclusion of a robust public process akin to the process that took place when enacting the current program. -- END --