BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1328|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 1328
Author: Lara (D)
Amended: 8/18/16
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/20/16
AYES: Wieckowski, Gaines, Bates, Hill, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 25-8, 5/31/16
AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara,
Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Monning, Pan, Pavley,
Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Fuller, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen,
Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Cannella, Gaines, Huff, Mitchell,
Nguyen, Runner
SENATE FLOOR: 26-12, 8/30/16
AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara,
Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan,
Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-2, 8/23/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Water delivery projects: reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions: funding
SB 1328
Page 2
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) to expend moneys from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund (GGRF), upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide
grants to public entities to implement stormwater and dry
weather 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
prescribed.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes 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 and requires
the Department of Finance, in consultation with California
Air Resources Board (ARB) and any other relevant state
agency, to develop, as specified, a three-year investment
plan for the moneys deposited in the GGRF. (Government Code
§16428.8).
2) Prohibits the state from approving allocations for a measure
or program using GGRF moneys 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. (Health and Safety Code §39712).
3) Establishes the Stormwater Resource Planning Act, which
authorizes one or more public agencies to develop a
stormwater resource plan that meets specified standards to
address the capture, treatment, and storage of stormwater and
dry weather runoff. (Water Code §10560 et seq.).
This bill:
SB 1328
Page 3
1) Authorizes SWRCB to provide grants to public agencies to
implement stormwater and dry runoff collection and treatment
projects that are intended to reduce GHG emissions by
decreasing demand for electricity needs to pump, transport,
and deliver water to consumers.
2) Authorizes SWRCB to expend moneys from GGRF, upon
appropriation of the Legislature for these grants.
3) Provides that eligible projects for funding include, but not
be limited to, green infrastructure, rainwater, stormwater,
and dry weather runoff capture projects, and stormwater
treatment facilities.
4) Specifies that grant funds may be used for all phases of
planning, design, and project construction and
implementation.
5) Requires SWRCB to establish criteria for funding projects
based on demonstration of GHG emissions reductions and
geographic conditions that facilitate stormwater and dry
weather runoff collection.
6) Requires SWRCB to give preference to projects located in, and
provide benefits to, disadvantaged communities.
Background
1) Water and energy use. According to the California Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC),
water-related energy use in the state consumes approximately
20% of the state's electricity and 30% of the state's
non-power plant natural gas (natural gas not used to produce
electricity). The water sector uses electricity to pump,
treat, transport, deliver, and heat water. CEC also found
that the most energy-intensive uses of water in California
are associated with end uses by the customer (e.g. heating,
processing, and pressurizing water), and 75% of the
electricity and nearly all of the natural gas use related to
water in California is associated with water heating.
SB 1328
Page 4
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.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),
energy is used in five stages in the water cycle:
a) Extracting and conveying: Extracting water from rivers
and streams or pumping it from aquifers, and then
conveying it over hills and into storage facilities is a
highly energy intensive process. In California, the State
Water Project (SWP) pumps water almost 2,000 feet over the
Tehachapi Mountains. The SWP is the largest single 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.
b) Treating water: Water treatment facilities use energy
to pump and process water.
c) Distributing water: Energy is needed to transport
water.
d) Using water: End users consume energy to treat water
with softeners or filters, to circulate and pressurize
water with circulation pumps and irrigation systems, and
to heat and cool water.
e) Collecting and treating wastewater: Energy is used to
pump wastewater to the treatment plant, and to aerate and
filter it at the plant. On average, wastewater treatment
in California uses 500 to 1,500 kilowatt-hours per
acre-foot.
By reducing the amount of water we use, we lessen our demand
on the energy-intensive systems that deliver and treat water.
2) Stormwater. According to the US EPA, stormwater runoff is a
major cause of water pollution in urban areas. When rain
falls on roofs, streets, and parking lots in cities and their
suburbs, the water cannot soak into the ground as it should.
SB 1328
Page 5
Stormwater drains through gutters, storm sewers, and other
engineered collection systems and is discharged into nearby
water bodies. The stormwater runoff carries trash, bacteria,
heavy metals, and other pollutants from the urban landscape.
Higher flows resulting from heavy rains also can cause
erosion and flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat
property and infrastructure. When rain falls in natural,
undeveloped areas, the water is absorbed and filtered by soil
and plants - Stormwater runoff is cleaner and less of a
problem.
According to SWRCB, past approaches to stormwater management
have focused on limited treatment prior to conveyance
off-site and ultimately into receiving waters. The municipal
separate storm sewer systems and flood control infrastructure
used for this purpose may have been successful in terms of
flood control and some degree of treatment; however many past
approaches have not been adequate to fully address the water
quality impacts of stormwater discharges while providing
multiple benefits such as water supply augmentation and
ecological enhancement of the local watershed. In general,
the transport of stormwater from the location of rainfall via
constructed municipal storm drain systems (pipelines,
reinforced channels, outfalls, etc.) has caused downstream
hydromodification (unnatural alteration of natural drainage
features) and destabilization of water bodies, and impacted
beneficial uses of those receiving surface water bodies.
More recent approaches to stormwater management seek to
replicate natural hydrology and watershed processes by
managing stormwater and dry weather runoff onsite or within
the watershed where rainfall occurs - and the pollutants it
contains - delivered to receiving waters.
3) Storm Water Grant Program (SWGP). According to SWRCB, the
purpose of SWGP is 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. The SWGP
Unit was established after the passage of Proposition 84, the
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control,
River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006. In November
SB 1328
Page 6
2014, California voters approved Proposition 1 (Prop. 1),
Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of
2014 (AB 1471, Rendon). 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.
4) Executive Order B-29-15. Executive Order B-29-15 (Brown),
issued April 1, 2015, directed state agencies to perform
various actions regarding saving water to respond to severe
drought conditions in the state, including directing CEC,
jointly with the Department of Water Resources (DWR), to
implement a Water Energy Technology (WET) program to deploy
innovative water management technologies that achieve water
and energy savings and GHG emissions reductions - projects
must have direct water savings, direct energy savings, and
reduce GHG emissions. In addition, projects must reduce
water use or improve water production. The Executive Order
also directed CEC, jointly with DWR, to implement a limited
statewide appliance rebate program for inefficient
appliances.
5) Water-Energy Grant Program. The Water-Energy Grant Program
provides funds to implement water efficiency programs or
projects that reduce GHG emissions, and reduce water and
energy use. The funding for this program is appropriated
from GGRF to DWR to establish a grant program; available
funding is $19 million (with an additional $10 million that
may be available). Eligible applicants include local
agencies, joint power authorities, and nonprofit
organizations. DWR is proposing to focus the 2016
solicitation on the following eligible programs/projects:
Commercial Water Efficiency or Institutional Water
Efficiency Programs.
Projects that reduce GHG, reduce water and energy use.
Only projects with water conservation measures that also
save energy.
1) Cap-and-trade auction revenue. Since November 2012, ARB has
conducted 14 cap-and-trade auctions, generating over $4
billion in proceeds to the state. (For more background
SB 1328
Page 7
information regarding cap-and-trade revenue, please refer to
the Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis on this
bill.)
Comments
1) Purpose of bill. According to the author:
SB 1328 provides much needed assistance for the increased
deployment of stormwater capture and groundwater recharge
facilities. Groundwater, which is located in geologic
formations called aquifers, is an important piece of
California's water supply, and is utilized for urban and
rural cities' water systems, agricultural irrigation, and
industry uses.
Aquifers recharged naturally over time via the percolation
of stormwater through the soil, in addition to seepage from
rivers and creeks. Disruption of the natural recharge
cycle of aquifers has been caused by overdrafting, which
occurs when water is extracted beyond the safe yield of an
aquifer.
Reduced groundwater levels impact communities in urban and
rural areas in regards to water access, quality, and
affordability, as the reliance on water imports, either by
conveyance system or transported by trucks, is increased.
Despite the availability of Water Bond funds for stormwater
infrastructure there are still significant barriers to
increased implementation of stormwater projects. Access to
funding is a key component to increased deployment, as
projects at various stages of development may require
assistance with startup and/or backfill expenses. In
addition, some projects may have limited access to
technical assistance to prove project feasibility, which in
turn if proven successful would prompt further assistance
to prove project feasibility, which in turn if proven
successful would prompt further community investment.
Current funds, available for stormwater infrastructure
require a 50% match, which can be difficult to reach for
SB 1328
Page 8
some projects, depending on the level of access to capital
or stage of development. All of these barriers are
compounded when applied to disadvantaged communities, along
with the negative impacts of aquifer overdrafting.
SB 1328 would create an appropriation from [GGRF] to
facilitate the increased deployment of stormwater capture
projects and groundwater recharge facilities, while also
prioritizing projects located in disadvantaged communities
as defined by Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code.
By increasing incentives for stormwater capture
infrastructure all communities can benefit from increased
resiliency in local water supplies, providing better access
and water quality.
2) Piece by piece. GGRF investments must facilitate the
achievement of GHG emissions reductions. However, after that
requirement is fulfilled, there are a number of other policy
goals that should be considered, including benefits to
environmental quality, resource protection, public health and
the economy, as well as benefits to disadvantaged
communities. Various policy committees have been referred
proposals for investing GGRF moneys, and these committees
will likely consider whether proposals meet basic statutory
requirements and align with legislative priorities. However,
in order to create an optimized investment strategy from GGRF
moneys, proposals should not be considered in isolation, but
be assessed in aggregate to evaluate which set of proposals
best meets the requirements of the fund, uses resources most
efficiently, and maximizes policy objectives. As the budget
committees are considering the Governor's proposal of GGRF
expenditures, the budget process may be an ideal way to
comprehensively consider the numerous policy bills that
propose new programs funded through the GGRF.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, cost
pressures, likely in the millions of dollars, to fund the
SB 1328
Page 9
program (GGRF). 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. Up to
approximately $565,000 (GGRF) annually for ARB to coordinate
with SWRCB in developing and updating guidelines, developing
quantification methodologies, and providing legal review.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/23/16)
Association of California Water Agencies
Audubon California
California League of Conservation Voters
City of Long Beach
Tree People
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/23/16)
CalTax
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
I am returning Senate Bill 1328 without my signature.
This bill creates a new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
program for stormwater projects.
Rather than creating a potentially duplicative program, I
am directing the Resources Agency to work with the State
Water Resources Control Board to ensure that stormwater
projects are included in the Urban Greening Program.
SB 1328
Page 10
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-2, 8/23/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Gallagher,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine,
Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell,
Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Beth Gaines, Harper
NO VOTE RECORDED: Frazier
Prepared by:Joanne Roy / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
10/19/16 9:47:49
**** END ****