BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    SB 1464


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          1464 (De León)


          As Amended  April 11, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  26-5


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Natural         |7-1  |Williams, Cristina    |Harper              |
          |Resources       |     |Garcia, Gomez,        |                    |
          |                |     |Hadley, McCarty, Mark |                    |
          |                |     |Stone, Wood           |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |12-1 |Gonzalez, Bloom,      |Bigelow             |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Bonta,       |                    |
          |                |     |Eggman,               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Quirk,         |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Weber,      |                    |
          |                |     |Wood, McCarty         |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |








                                                                    SB 1464


                                                                    Page  2





           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Requires that the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF)  
          Investment Plan include additional assessments and recommended  
          metrics for proposed investments.  Specifically, this bill: 


          1)Requires that when identifying priority programmatic  
            investments that facilitate the achievement of feasible and  
            cost-effective greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions  
            toward achievement of GHG reduction goals and targets, the  
            Investment Plan do both of the following: 


             a)   Asses how the proposed investments interact with current  
               state regulations, policies, and programs; and, 


             b)   Evaluate if and how those proposed investments could be  
               incorporated into existing programs.  


          2)Requires that the Investment Plan recommend metrics that would  
            measure progress and benefits from the proposed programmatic  
            investments. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Increased Air Resources Board (ARB) costs of  
          approximately $320,000 per year for two years, and an additional  
          $300,000 in contracts for modeling investments, interactions  
          with existing policies, and analyzing emissions impacts from  
          investment concepts (GGRF).


          COMMENTS:  The first three-year Investment Plan for  
          cap-and-trade auction proceeds, developed by the Department of  
          Finance in consultation with ARB and other state agencies and  
          covering 2013-2015, was submitted to the Legislature in May  








                                                                    SB 1464


                                                                    Page  3





          2013.  The Investment Plan identified sustainable communities  
          and clean transportation, energy efficiency and clean energy,  
          and natural resources and waste diversion as the three broad  
          categories that provide the best opportunities, in that order,  
          for achieving state GHG reduction goals via auction proceeds.   
          Existing law also directs specified levels of investment be made  
          to benefit disadvantaged communities.  Within those categories,  
          the Investment Plan identified a range of programs and measures  
          to reduce GHG emissions, benefit disadvantaged communities, and  
          provide other cobenefits, such as reduced air pollution,  
          diversification of energy and fuels, and spurring relevant  
          technological innovation.


          The second Investment Plan was released in January 2016, and  
          proposes diverse strategies under the same three major  
          investment categories, identifies gaps in the current investment  
          portfolio, and suggests approaches that would help address these  
          gaps.


          According to the Legislative Analyst's Office February 2016  
          report on the Governor's proposed resources and environmental  
          protection budget expenditures, the Investment Plan lacks the  
          necessary analysis needed to develop a framework for spending.   
          They also state that the Investment Plan does not explicitly  
          address how new programs might interact with existing  
          regulations or programs, and that proposals from the  
          administration lack reliable estimates of benefits, which make  
          it difficult to evaluate which set of programs are likely to  
          best achieve state priorities and provide the greatest overall  
          benefits, compared to alternative strategies.  


          This bill is intended to ensure that the Investment Plan better  
          serves its original statutory intent to guide the Legislature in  
          funding an optimized strategy of complementary investments to  
          maximize GHG emissions reductions and co-benefits from the GGRF,  
          especially in those communities disproportionately burdened by  








                                                                    SB 1464


                                                                    Page  4





          pollution.  




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092  
                                                                         
          FN: 0004018