BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 400 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 13, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Das Williams, Chair SB 400 (Lara) - As Amended June 1, 2015 SENATE VOTE: 27-9 SUBJECT: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. SUMMARY: Requires the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) to fund projects that offset construction impacts of the high speed rail project. EXISTING LAW: 1)Establishes the HSRA in 1996 to direct development and implementation of an intercity high-speed rail service that is fully coordinated with other public transportation services. In 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A authorizing $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the high-speed rail program and related commuter rail services. 2)Requires, pursuant to AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions measures to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, including SB 400 Page 2 market-based mechanisms (e.g., cap-and-trade program). 3)Establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) in the State Treasury and requires all cap-and trade proceeds to be deposited into the fund. 4)Requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to develop a three-year investment plan to guide expenditure of cap-and-trade auction revenues to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with AB 32. 5)Requires the GGRF investment plan to allocate, at a minimum, 25% GGRF money to benefit disadvantaged communities and to allocate 10% of GGRF moneys within disadvantaged communities. 6)Continuously appropriates 25% of the GGRF to HSRA for acquisition, construction, environmental review and design of the initial operating segment and Phase I Blended System. THIS BILL: 1)Requires HSRA to allocate 25% of appropriated cap-and-trade funds to projects that reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality in disadvantaged communities and designated non-attainment areas. Suggested qualifying projects include, but are not limited to: a) Public transit improvements that reduce congestion; b) Transportation improvements that reduce congestion; c) Alternative transportation options; SB 400 Page 3 d) Natural systems such as rural and urban forests that reduce GHG emissions or increase the sequestration of carbon; and, e) Use of low- and zero-emission equipment for transportation construction. 2)Makes related, technical amendments. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown costs pressures to the GGRF as a result of expanding the eligible uses of the GGRF that are continuously appropriated for the high-speed rail project. COMMENTS: The communities along the high-speed rail corridor through California's Central Valley suffer from some of the state's worst air quality. In fact last year, the American Lung Association noted that, despite vast improvements over the last few decades, the Central Valley still has the nation's highest levels of ozone and fine particle pollution. The author introduced SB 400 out of concern for communities like these that are already burdened by nearby, heavily congested highway corridors. He notes that, while the high-speed rail project will eventually reduce GHG emissions and air pollution, the project will be detrimental to the Central Valley in the short term due to the environmental impacts from construction. SB 400 Page 4 Recognizing concerns such as these, HSRA committed to achieving zero-net GHG emissions related to construction activities, material deliveries, and worker travel. For example, the authority has committed to planting trees to offset the first phases of construction. Furthermore, HSRA is working with the San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) to provide additional mitigation for construction emissions. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between HSRA and the District, each quarter the HSRA construction contractor will submit a list of equipment that has been used during the quarter along with the number of miles driven or hours used. HSRA will then pay the District a dollar value equivalent to be used for programs to, for example, replace aging farm and other high-polluting equipment. This mitigation is intended to complement requirements that HSRA already imposes on its construction contractor to use clean construction vehicles. HSRA expects that it could pay the District approximately $40 million under the terms of the MOU. HSRA has undertaken these measures despite the fact that the U.S. Transportation Board ruled that California's environmental review laws are federally pre-empted; consequently, the project is not required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, including requirements to mitigate environmental impacts. This bill will direct 25% of the cap-and-trade revenue directed to the high-speed rail project (or $125 million/year if cap-and-trade auctions bring in $2 billion/year) to projects that benefit communities in designated extreme non-attainment areas. While the bill is intended to offset environmental impacts due to high-speed rail construction, it does not impose any requirement that the mitigation funds be spent in communities near the construction zones. Instead, SB 400 requires monies to be spent in areas designated as extreme non-attainment areas. California has two extreme non-attainment areas: the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. Conceivably, SB 400 could result in millions of dollars being spent in Southern California, hundreds of miles from the high-speed rail construction sites. SB 400 Page 5 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support None on file Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by:Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092