BILL ANALYSIS
SB 632
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 632
AUTHOR: Lowenthal
AMENDED: March 31, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : PORT CONGESTION AND MITIGATION RELIEF
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Establishes the California Marine and Intermodal
Transportation System Advisory Council, and requires the
council to meet, hold hearings, and compile data on certain
issues (e.g., projected growth of each maritime port in the
state, impact's of maritime growth on the state's
transportation system, air pollution caused by goods
movement, statewide plan) (Harbors and Navigation Code
1760).
2) Under the Harbors and Ports Mitigation Law, requires a
public agency to approve certain mitigation for port
projects involving filling of subtidal habitats within
ocean or inland ports (Harbors and Navigation Code 1720 et
seq.).
3) Establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
and sets various duties and procedures for the CTC
(Government Code 14500 et seq.).
4) Authorizes the State Resources Board (ARB) to coordinate
efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality
standards (Health and Safety Code 39003) and specifies its
powers (Health and Safety Code 39500 et seq.).
5) Creates the State Infrastructure and Economic Development
Bank and specifies its powers (Government Code 63020 et
seq.).
SB 632
Page 2
This bill:
1) Renumbers and makes technical amendments to the California
Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory
Council requirements.
2) Enacts the Port Congestion Relief and Port Mitigation
Relief Law that:
a) Requires the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and
Oakland to assess infrastructure and air quality
improvement needs beginning January 1, 2010.
b) Requires the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to
consult with the Southern California Association of
Governments, and the Port of Oakland to consult the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on
infrastructure projects that improve cargo movement
efficiency and reduce congestion impacts associated with
cargo movement. The ports must identify the project,
funding source or possible funding source, and estimated
timeliness for completion.
c) Requires the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to
consult with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, and the Port of Oakland to consult the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District, on air quality
projects that reduce pollution associated with cargo
movement, including projects that reduce pollution from
trucks, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and
ships. The ports must identify the project, funding
source or possible funding source, and estimated
timelines for completion.
d) Requires the ports to provide the assessments to the
Legislature by July 1, 2010, including assessments of
infrastructure and air quality improvement costs,
funding sources, and possible funding options for
projects without a funding source.
SB 632
Page 3
e) Contains related legislative intent.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, pollution from
the state's ports causes 3,700 premature deaths annually;
polluting activities from port operations will have an
aggregate health impact equivalent to about $200 billion
over the next 15 years; by 2020, ports and freight
transport operations will be the largest source of
particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions in the
state, producing more PM than all passenger vehicles,
off-road equipment, and stationary sources combined.
The author notes that according to the Los Angeles Economic
Development Corporation, southern California must spend at
least $10.5 billion to improve railroads, rail yards, and
highways to keep up with international trade or risk losing
more than 500,000 new jobs and more than $1 billion of
taxes annually. According to the author, southern
California also risks losing $12.1 billion in federal
highway funds if federal Clean Air Act standards are not
met; the estimated cost to reduce goods movement pollution
statewide to 2001 levels is between $6 billion and $10
billion; and that for every $1 invested to reduce goods
movement pollution, California would save between $3 and $8
in avoided health costs.
In response to these concerns, SB 632 provides the Legislature
with infrastructure and air quality improvement information
for the state's three largest ports.
2) Related legislation . Bills setting shipping container fees
to finance certain port mitigation and congestion projects
include SB 760 (Lowenthal) of 2006. The provisions of that
bill were subsequently amended into SB 927 (Lowenthal) of
2006. In vetoing SB 927, Governor Schwarzenegger indicated
that "if done in a more coordinated fashion with the public
and private sector, funding for additional congestion
relief and mitigation could be increased geometrically."
The Governor also cited his support of the transportation
bond and noted that "my goods movement task force is
SB 632
Page 4
developing a comprehensive report that will provide more
thorough and strategic direction and insight on what the
best options are to address goods movement and port related
challenges." According to the Governor, in vetoing SB 974
(Lowenthal) of 2007-08, "I encourage the Legislature to
develop legislation that provides proper guidance,
oversight and accountability, ensures that the San Joaquin
Valley is eligible for funds to address port-related cargo
pollution, and allows for varied congestion reduction
infrastructure."
3) Technical considerations . In the port assessments, ports
should identify "the projects" rather than "the project,"
since there is likely to be more than one project. Also,
requirements for providing assessments to the Legislature
should be in separate subdivisions within each section of
this bill.
SOURCE : Senator Lowenthal
SUPPORT : Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Breathe California
OPPOSITION : None on file