BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2329
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 12, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                   AB 2329 (Ruskin) - As Amended:  April 26, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Natural  
          ResourcesVote:6-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill establishes in law the Climate Action Team (CAT),  
          which currently exists per executive order.  Specifically, this  
          bill:

          1)Establishes the CAT, chaired by the Secretary for  
            Environmental Protection and made up of the heads of several  
            other state agencies, to coordinate state climate policy  
            consistent with AB 32 and Executive Order No. S-3-05 (EO).

          2)Assigns the following activities to the CAT, all in keeping  
            with AB 32 and the EO:

             a)   Identify and review activities, funding programs, and  
               other revenue of state agencies that may be coordinated.
             b)   Recommend policies, investment strategies, and  
               priorities.
             c)   Provide information to local governments and regional  
               activities.

          3)Subjects CAT meetings to the state's open-meeting laws.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA)  
          indicates that existing staff currently supports CAT activity.   
          Because this bill does not require CAT to do anything it does  
          not currently do, Cal EPA contends it has no costs.  However,  
          the CAT currently operates consistent with EO, not statute.   
          Should this bill become law, the cost for CAT administration,  
          while not new, would be attributable to this bill.  Therefore,  








                                                                  AB 2329
                                                                  Page  2

          this bill would result in annual cost of an unknown amount but,  
          based on passed budget requests, likely around $1 million a year  
          (mainly special funds).  

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . The author intends this bill to require, in law,  
            coordination of the state's GHG emissions reduction  
            activities.  The author wants to ensure that CAT's efforts  
            continue beyond the current administration.

           2)Background.  

              a)   AB 32  (N??ez, Chapter 455, Statutes of 2006) requires  
               California to limit its emissions of GHGs so that, by 2020,  
               those emissions are equal to what they were in 1990. To  
               that end, AB 32 requires ARB to quantify the state's 1990  
               GHG emissions and to adopt, by January 1, 2009, a "scoping  
               plan" that describes the board's plan for achieving the  
               maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective  
               reductions of GHG emissions reductions by 2020.   
             
              b)   EOs S-3-05 and S-20-06  create the CAT to engage in AB  
               32-related activities and overall climate policy; directs  
               the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) to  
               coordinate multi-agency efforts to meet GHG emission  
               reduction targets; and requires each agency to annually  
               prepare and submit GHG-related information to Cal EPA.

           3)Related Legislation.  

              a)   SB 721 (Steinberg, 2009)  would have codify the CAT under  
               the Secretary for Environmental Protection.  SB 721 did not  
               include representatives of some state departments that, at  
               that time, were active CAT members.  The bill was held in  
               the Senate Appropriations.  

              b)   SB 1760  (Perata, 2008) sought to formalize the structure  
               and duties of the CAT to coordinate climate policy and  
               expenditure of state funds.  SB 1760 was vetoed by the  
               Governor.  

           4)Support.   This bill is supported by some public health and  
            environmental groups.









                                                                  AB 2329
                                                                  Page  3

           5)There is no registered opposition to this bill.  

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081