BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 523 Hearing Date: 4/21/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |McGuire |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/6/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Erin Riches |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Schoolbus replacement
DIGEST: This bill creates a grant program for schoolbus
replacement in small school districts.
ANALYSIS:
In November 2006, voters approved Proposition 1B, the Highway
Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond
Act of 2006. This initiative authorized $19.9 billion in
general obligation bonds for transportation programs, including
$200 million for replacement and retrofit of schoolbuses. The
state Air Resources Board (ARB) distributed these funds to local
air districts through the existing Lower-Emission School Bus
Program (LESBP). The Proposition 1B monies funded 1,018
schoolbus replacements and 3,479 retrofits. The San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District now administers this
program on behalf of ARB with a small amount of federal funds.
The Small School District and County Office of Education Bus
Replacement Program, administered by the state Department of
Education (CDE), provided funds to upgrade schoolbuses to comply
with 1992 federal safety standards. Priority was given first to
the purchase of new schoolbuses to replace existing buses, then
to reconditioning existing buses, and lastly to purchase new
schoolbuses to increase the recipient's fleet. Eligible
recipients were school districts and county offices of education
with an average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 2,501
SB 523 (McGuire) Page 2 of ?
students. This program has been merged into California's new
school funding formula.
This bill:
Creates the Schoolbus Replacement for Small and Disadvantaged
Communities Grant Program, to be administered by CDE and ARB,
and annually appropriates $5 million from the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (commonly known as cap-and-trade), beginning in
fiscal year 2015-16, to the program to fund the purchase of new
schoolbuses as part of the effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions pursuant to AB 32.
Provides that eligible recipients fall into three categories:
1) a school district or county office of education with an ADA
of less than 2,501, with more than 50% of the student population
qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch programs; 2) category
1 entities that provide student transportation services through
a cooperative consortium or joint powers agreement; and 3) CDE's
Division of State Special Schools, which provides services for
deaf, hard of hearing, blind, and visually impaired students.
Requires CDE to prioritize funds based on vehicle age and
accumulated mileage. Requires an applicant to submit, as
evidence of the condition of the vehicle to be replaced, the
most recent California Highway Patrol inspection report, a
repair estimate from an independent repair shop, and any other
information requested by CDE.
Requires CDE to estimate the cost of a replacement schoolbus of
the same capacity as the schoolbus being replaced; provides that
an applicant may not receive program funds exceeding that cost;
and provides that a schoolbus that has been disposed of is not
eligible for replacement under this program.
Requires funds to be made available for special-education
schoolbuses in an amount not less than the proportion of
special-education schoolbuses to the total number of schoolbuses
in the state, as determined by CDE.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. The author states that according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), more than half of
schoolbuses have been in service for over a decade.
SB 523 (McGuire) Page 3 of ?
Schoolbuses built to meet US EPA's 2010 standards emit 95%
less pollution than pre-2007 buses and are 60 times cleaner
than pre-1991 buses. Older, more polluting schoolbuses pose
significant health risks to children who typically ride these
buses for one-half to two hours per day. Emissions from older
buses also have a negative impact on the communities in which
they travel. Unlike many states, California does not require
school districts to take buses off the road after a set number
of years; as a result, the state has some of the oldest buses
in the country. The author states that replacing one
schoolbus saves $3,000 per year in fuel costs alone. This
bill makes a modest investment that will have a significant
impact on the state's air quality.
2.Assisting disadvantaged communities. This bill directs funds
to small school districts in lower-income communities.
Existing law (SB 535, De Leon, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012),
requires the state to allocate 25% of cap-and-trade funds to
projects that benefit disadvantaged communities and at least
10% to projects located within those communities. Thus far,
however, no cap-and-trade funds have been targeted to
schoolbus replacement. The author notes that about 100 school
districts transport more than half their students, compared to
10% in most districts. These districts tend to have smaller
enrollments, be located in more rural areas, and enroll larger
populations of students from low-income families compared to
those with smaller student transportation programs. The
author states that directing funds to school districts with
low ADA and a high percentage of students qualifying for free
or reduced-price lunch programs specifically targets areas
that cannot afford, but most need, to replace older,
high-polluting school buses.
3.Reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 directs cap-and-trade funds to
programs that reduce GHG emissions. Diesel schoolbus
emissions are primarily made up of particulate matter (PM).
The author states that the technology for hybrid or electric
buses, which directly reduce GHG emissions, is not only
cost-prohibitive for many school districts but also does not
support the long commutes required in most small,
disadvantaged districts. In addition, due to lack of funding,
school districts often park the bus and cut the route when a
school bus becomes too old to drive or fuel costs become too
expensive. This can lead to more cars on the road - and thus,
increased GHG emissions - as parents are forced to drive their
SB 523 (McGuire) Page 4 of ?
kids to school. Because this program will not directly reduce
GHG emissions, it may not qualify for cap-and-trade funds.
4.How far will the money go? A quick Internet search indicates
that a used diesel schoolbus costs up to $100,000 and a new
diesel schoolbus costs roughly $150,000, compared to more than
$250,000 for an electric bus. This program provides $5
million per year. At $100,000 per bus, this bill would
theoretically fund the purchase of 50 or more used diesel
buses per year - more if applicants leverage other funding
sources.
5.Double referral. This bill has been referred to the Rules
Committee for consideration of a referral to the Environmental
Quality Committee.
Related Legislation:
SB 760 (Mendoza) - which this committee heard last week,
establishes a new program under the Strategic Growth Council to
direct cap-and-trade spending to greenspace conversion, parks,
active transportation, and other projects in disadvantaged
communities.
AB 156 (Perea) - pending hearing in the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee, requires ARB to establish a comprehensive
technical assistance program, and a three-year investment plan,
to assist disadvantaged community applicants.
AB 1336 (Salas) - also in the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee, requires a minimum of 40% of cap-and-trade funds to
be allocated to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged
communities.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 15, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
None received.
SB 523 (McGuire) Page 5 of ?
OPPOSITION:
None received.
-- END --