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