BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1328
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1328
(Lara) - As Amended June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Water, Parks and Wildlife |Vote:|12 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to expend funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
(GGRF), upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide grants
to public entities to implement stormwater and dry weather
SB 1328
Page 2
runoff collection and treatment projects that are intended to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by decreasing the demand
for electricity needed to pump, transport, and deliver water
from natural sources to serve water consumers, as specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Provides eligible projects for funding include, but are not
limited to, green infrastructure, rainwater, stormwater, dry
weather runoff capture projects, and stormwater treatment
facilities.
2) Specifies grant funds may be used for all phases of planning,
design, and project construction and implementation.
3) Requires SWRCB to establish criteria for funding projects
based on the demonstration of GHG emissions reductions and
geographic conditions that facilitate stormwater and dry
weather runoff collection.
4) Requires SWRCB to give preference to projects located in, and
providing benefits to, a disadvantaged community or located
within one-half mile of a channelized river.
5) Authorizes SWRCB to use or adapt the guidelines developed to
implement the Storm Water Grant Program, which is funded in
accordance with the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1, Water Bond).
FISCAL EFFECT:
SB 1328
Page 3
1)Cost pressures, likely in the millions of dollars, to fund the
program (GGRF).
2)Increased unknown administrative costs, likely 5% of the total
program funds, for SWRCB to implement the program. According
to SWRCB, an amendment is necessary to allow the use of GGRF
for administrative costs rather than GF.
3)Up to approximately $565,000 (GGRF) annually for the Air
Resources Board (ARB) to coordinate with SWRCB in developing
and updating guidelines, developing quantification
methodologies, and providing legal review.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, despite the availability of
Water Bond funds for stormwater infrastructure, there are
still significant barriers to increased implementation of
stormwater projects. This bill provides assistance for the
increased deployment of stormwater capture while also
prioritizing projects located in disadvantaged communities and
within a half mile of channelized rivers.
2)Background. The SWRCB, manages the Storm Water Grant Program
to fund stormwater and dry weather runoff projects that best
advance SWRCB's policy goals of improving water quality and
realizing multiple benefits from the use of stormwater and dry
weather runoff as resources. In November 2014, California
voters approved Proposition 1 (Prop. 1), Water Quality, Supply
and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (AB 1471, Rendon,
Chapter 188). Of the $7.545 billion in general obligation
bonds for water projects, Prop. 1 provides $200 million in
grants for multi-benefit stormwater management projects
SB 1328
Page 4
The State Water Project is the single largest user of energy
in the state and consumes an average of 5 billion kWh/yr,
accounting for about 2-3% of all electricity consumed in
California. According to the California Energy Commission,
water-related energy use in California consumes approximately
20% of the state's electricity and 30% of the state's
non-power plant natural gas.
The water sector uses electricity to pump, treat, transport,
deliver, and heat water. Additionally, expected increases in
groundwater pumping, water treatment, and water recycling due
to drought conditions in the state, mean the energy intensity
of water will likely increase.
3)GGRF. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(AB 32, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) required ARB to adopt a
statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to
1990 levels by 2020 and adopt regulations to achieve maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reductions. As part of its AB 32 implementation, ARB adopted
a cap-and-trade program for which the proceeds from the
auction or sale of GHG allowances are deposited in the GGRF
available for appropriation by the Legislature.
To date, cap-and-trade auction revenues have generated over $4
billion. However, the most recent auction, held last month,
generated just over $10 million, much less than expected. The
previous auction (February, 2016) generated over $500 million.
The Governor proposed spending over $3 billion for a variety
SB 1328
Page 5
of programs and projects in the transportation, energy,
natural resources, and waste diversion sectors in the 2016-17
budget, however, the Legislature did not act upon these items.
According to the Assembly Budget Committee, due to
lower-than-expected auction revenues, decisions on
cap-and-trade funding were deferred until after June 15, 2016.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081