BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Bob Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 698 Hearing Date: 04/15/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cannella |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |2/27/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Rebecca Newhouse |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Active Transportation Program: school zone safety
projects
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1. Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also
known as AB 32), requires the California 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. (Government Code §16428.8)
3. Prohibits the state from approving allocations for a measure or
program using GGRF monies except after determining that the use
of those moneys furthers the regulatory purposes of AB 32, and
requires moneys from the GGRF be used to facilitate the
achievement of reductions of GHG emissions in California.
(HSC §39712)
4. Continuously appropriates 60% of GGRF monies to transit,
affordable housing and sustainable communities, including 20%
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 2
of ?
continuously appropriated to the Strategic Growth Council for
the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program.
(HSC §39719)
5. Creates the Active Transportation Program in the California
Department of Transportation for the purpose of encouraging
increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking
and walking. (Streets and Highways Code §2380)
This bill continuously appropriates an unspecified percentage of
GGRF monies to the State Transportation Fund to fund school zone
safety projects within the Active Transportation Program.
Background
1.Safe Routes to Schools and the Active Transportation Program.
A. Safe Routes to Schools.
State program: AB 1475 (Soto) Chapter 663, Statutes of
1999, created the Safe Routes to School program. The
program was subsequently amended to extend the program
indefinitely with funding provided from the State Highway
Account.
The program requires the Department of Transportation, in
consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to
make grants available to local governmental agencies under
the program based upon the results of a statewide
competition and rates those proposals based on need,
potential for reducing child injuries and fatalities,
potential for encouraging increased walking and bicycling,
and other considerations.
Federal program: Originally created as a five-year program
in 2005, extensions through continuing resolutions have
been enacted by Congress extending the federal Safe Routes
to School program to fund infrastructure, and
non-infrastructure projects for the purposes of enabling
and encouraging students to safely walk and bicycle to
school, making walking and bicycling to school a more
appealing mode choice, and facilitating the planning,
design, and implementation of projects that will improve
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 3
of ?
safety, environment, and overall quality of life. The
California Department of Transportation is responsible for
developing and implementing the program.
B. Active Transportation Program.
SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Statutes of
2013, Chapter 359, and AB 101 (Committee on Budget),
Statutes of 2013, Chapter 354, creates the Active
Transportation Program (ATP) in the California Department
of Transportation (CalTrans), and consolidates several
existing federal and state transportation programs,
including the Transportation Alternatives Program, Bicycle
Transportation Account, and State Safe Routes to School,
into a single program.
The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active
modes of transportation by achieving goals including
increasing the number of biking and walking trips,
increased safety and mobility for bikers and walkers,
reduced GHG emissions through active transportation,
enhanced public health, and benefits to disadvantaged
communities.
The program is made up of a statewide, small urban or
rural, as well as a large Metropolitan Planning
Organization component, which, respectively, receive 50,
10, and 40% of the available funds. Additionally, a minimum
of 25% of the ATP funds must benefit disadvantaged
communities.
A total of 265 projects with almost $368 million in ATP
funds (from the federal Transportation Alternative Program
and Highway Safety Improvements funds as well as State
Highway Account funds) were programmed as of December,
2014, and of these projects, about $161 million, or roughly
44%, was programmed for 149 safe-routes-to-school projects.
2.Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program.
The Budget Act of 2014 appropriates $130 million from the GGRF
to develop and implement the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program (AHSC). SB 862 (Committee on Budget and
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 4
of ?
Fiscal Review) Statutes of 2014, Chapter 36, continuously
appropriates 20% of GGRF annual proceeds to the AHSC beginning
in FY 2015-16. The AHSC, administered by the Strategic Growth
Council, is tasked with reducing GHG emissions through projects
that implement land use, housing, transportation, and
agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and
compact development.
Additionally, the statute specifies that project objectives
include reducing air pollution, improving connectivity and
accessibility to jobs, housing and services, and increasing
options for mobility, including implementation of the Active
Transportation Program.
The guidelines specify that the program will provide grants and
loans to reduce GHG emissions through increasing accessibility
of affordable housing, employment centers and key destinations
via low-carbon transportation resulting in fewer vehicle miles
traveled through shortened or reduced vehicle trip length or
mode shift to transit, bicycling or walking. Key destinations
are defined in the guidelines as, "one or more community
amenities such as schools, community centers, employment
centers, retail, services, parks and other destinations.
3.Use of Cap and Trade Auction Revenue.
ARB has conducted ten cap-and-trade auctions, generating almost
$1.6 billion in proceeds to the state.
Several bills in 2012, and one in 2014, provide 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
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 5
of ?
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
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 is 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
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 6
of ?
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
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 cap-and-trade expenditures are
largely the same as the 2014-15 plan, albeit with larger amounts
proposed allocations for programs with continuous
appropriations, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities program ($200 million).
Comments
1. Purpose of Bill.
According to the author, "In an effort to continue to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, more emphasis needs to be placed on
the Active Transportation Program. ATP consolidated several
programs to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance
public health, and ensure that disadvantaged communities benefit
from the program. Funding hasn't been adequate to meet these
expectations."
2. Do School Zone Safety Projects Advance the Goals of AB 32?
Promoting active transportation is an important component of
any comprehensive transportation strategy to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, as it fills in the gap for the "last mile" where
public transportation only gets the rider most of the way to
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 7
of ?
the destination. However, it is unclear to what extent a school
zone safety project that is not part of a larger project that
connects these school zone improvements with other sustainable
community features, such as infill development and transit,
will result in significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Any projects funded through GGRF monies are required to
facilitate the achievement of GHG emission reductions and be
used to advance the regulatory purposes of AB 32. As an
isolated project, without incorporation into a broader
development plan, it is unclear to what extent school zone
safety projects, called out specifically in SB 698 to receive a
continuous appropriation of GGRF monies, meet that requirement.
3. Funding For School Zone Safety.
As noted above, safe-route-to-school projects are a key
component of the state's Active Transportation Program. Of the
$368 million ATP funds programmed for 2014, 44% was programmed
for 149 safe-routes-to-school projects throughout the state.
Additionally, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program receives 20% of cap-and-trade revenue
annually (with total GGRF funds at $1.6 billion), and specifies
projects that reduce GHG emissions through sustainable housing,
land use and transportation developments, including active
transportation projects eligible under the ATP, as eligible
projects under the AHSC program. To the extent school zone
safety projects are able to reduce GHGs through reduced vehicle
miles by improving safety along corridors that connect
communities to schools, and encouraging active modes of
transportation along those corridors, they are currently
eligible for cap-and-trade revenue funding as part of
sustainable communities projects through that the AHSC program.
Does this specific expenditure, school zone safety projects,
require another dedicated stream of funding?
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 8
of ?
4. Definition.
The bill does not define the term "school zone safety
projects." Are these projects the same types of projects that
qualified under the safe-routes-to-school program and are now
included as a component of the Active Transportation Program?
This should be clarified.
5. Unspecified Allocation.
As noted above, California has dedicated funds specifically for
ATP and school zone safety. This bill would allocate an
additional amount for school safety, but currently contains a
blank line in the bill for that allocation. As the author is
currently unable to identify the additional amount needed for
this purpose and thereby justification for that amount, it is
unclear where an additional appropriation by the Legislature is
warranted.
6. Double Referral to Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee.
If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to
re-refer the bill to the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee.
SOURCE: Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership
SUPPORT:
None on file
OPPOSITION:
California Chamber of Commerce
-- END --
SB 698 (Cannella) Page 9
of ?