BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1405
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1405 (De Leon)
As Amended August 20, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 3, 2009) |SENATE: |22-15|(August 30, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Directs a minimum of 10% of revenues generated
pursuant to AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, to a
Community Benefits Fund (CBF) to be awarded by the Secretary for
Environmental Protection (Secretary) to benefit disadvantaged
communities.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Require a minimum of 10% of revenues from the sale of
compliance instruments for market-based compliance mechanisms
pursuant to AB 32 (e.g., allowances in a cap and trade
program) be deposited in the CBF.
2)Require the Secretary to administer the funds, which must be
used for programs or projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions or mitigate direct health, or environmental impacts
of climate change in the most impacted and disadvantaged
communities.
3)Define "most impacted and disadvantaged communities" as areas
with the highest 10%:
a) Air pollution exposure and socioeconomic vulnerability
within a non-attainment area; or,
b) Socioeconomic vulnerability to direct health, or
environmental, impacts of climate change.
4)Specify procedures for identifying the most impacted and
disadvantaged communities.
AB 1405
Page 2
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Provided that an unspecified percentage of the total revenues
generated by AB 32 be deposited in the CBF, which the bill
created.
2)Required moneys in the CBF be used, upon appropriation, for
the Community Benefits Program (Program) to award competitive
grants for projects in the most impacted and disadvantaged
communities in California to accelerate GHG emission
reductions and mitigate direct health impacts of climate
change.
3)Required the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop a
methodology to identify the most impacted and disadvantaged
communities.
4)Required ARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the
Department of Public Health (DPH) to jointly develop
semiannual plans for use of Program funds, and present them to
the Panel for approval.
5)Provided the Panel may only approve a project if it determines
that the use of moneys would not be inconsistent with Article
XIII A of the California Constitution (tax limitations,
including requirement that tax increases must be approved by
two-thirds vote of the Legislature).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : AB 32 authorizes ARB to adopt via regulation "a
schedule of fees to be paid by the sources of greenhouse gas
emissions" and deposit revenues into the Air Pollution Control
Fund. AB 32 also authorizes, but does not require, the use of
market-based mechanisms to achieve GHG emission reductions,
provided specified conditions are met.
Thus far, ARB has proposed only to use its fee authority for the
limited purpose of funding its own and other state agencies' AB
32 implementation costs, and to repay loans of other state funds
that previously have been approved by the Legislature for these
purposes. The fee revenue necessary for these purposes is
estimated at $55 million per year. It's possible that a more
expansive fee on GHG emitters, the auction of GHG emission
allowances, or another market mechanism will produce
AB 1405
Page 3
significantly higher revenues over the course of AB 32
implementation.
AB 32 also requires ARB to ensure that the GHG emission
reduction rules, regulations, programs, mechanisms, and
incentives under its jurisdiction direct public and private
investment toward the most disadvantaged communities in
California and provide an opportunity for small businesses,
schools, affordable housing associations, and other community
institutions to participate in and benefit from statewide
efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
AB 32 requires ARB, when implementing any market-based
compliance mechanism, to: "consider the potential for direct,
indirect, and cumulative emissions impacts from these
mechanisms, including localized impacts in communities that are
already adversely impacted by air pollution." Section
38570(b)(1). In addition, ARB is required to: "ensure that
activities undertaken to comply with the regulations do not
disproportionately impact low-income communities" Section
38562(b)(2).
On April 21, 2010, ARB released a draft of their proposed
screening method for identifying low-income communities that are
highly impacted by air pollution pursuant to their AB 32
requirements and goals. ARB's method for community
identification included several health risk indicators including
monitored levels of ozone and fine particulate matter pollution,
U.S. EPA respiratory air toxin data, and ARB diesel particulate
matter data. A ranking system was used to identify areas of
high to low air pollution health risk exposure. ARB's screening
method also included a low-income community indicator of:
"percent of population below 200% of federal poverty level in
each census tract." The ARB then identified their communities
of interest by overlaying geographic areas with the ranked
health risk exposure data with federal poverty level maps using
a geographical information system approach. With this method,
ARB identified a number of communities in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, the San Joaquin Valley, desert
areas in Southern CA, and in the Bay Area that the ARB will
consider in the future for AB 32 assessments programs or
projects.
One month following the release of ARB's draft, the AB 32
Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) released a
letter to ARB expressing concern regarding the ARB's study,
AB 1405
Page 4
indicating that several key components of the risk factor
screening method were missing including a sufficient list of
emissions vulnerability factors, accounting for regional
differences in pollution sources, a prioritization method based
on cumulative air pollution exposure, an inclusion of all of the
areas identified by their assessment, and identification of
communities that face disproportionate impacts of emissions
associated with land use, such as a nearby source of hazardous
emissions. EJAC is comprised of representatives from
communities that experience the most significant exposure to air
pollution, including, but not limited to, communities with
minority populations or low-income populations, or both. Part
of the mission of EJAC is to engage in AB 32 implementation by
providing advice to ARB with the goal of reducing GHG emissions
while maximizing the overall societal benefits. EJAC has also
stated that it is concerned that ARB has not included in their
community screening analysis potential health risk factors such
as race, ethnicity, home ownership rates, language data, age,
and a community's access to health care. According to the ARB,
the ARB's community identification screening process was
formulated using the EJAC study as background for environmental
justice. This bill would ensure that a fund is specifically
dedicated to environmental justice which would address many of
the significant factors identified by EJAC that are associated
with disadvantaged communities that are adversely affected by
climate change and air pollution.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0006842