BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 632
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 1, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                  SB 632 (Lowenthal) - As Amended:  April 30, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                               
          TransportationVote:12-1

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

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and  
          Oakland, by July 1, 2010, to assess infrastructure and air  
          quality improvement needs.  Specifically, this bill:

          1)Requires the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, by  
            July 1, 2010, to assess infrastructure and air quality  
            improvement needs and to provide the assessments to the  
            Legislature by July 1, 2010, including improvement costs,  
            funding sources, and funding options.  

          2)Requires the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports to consult with  
            the Southern California Association of Governments and the  
            Oakland port to consult with the Metropolitan Transportation  
            Commission on infrastructure projects that improve cargo  
            movement efficiency and reduce congestion impacts associated  
            with cargo movement.  

          3)Requires the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports to consult with  
            the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Oakland to  
            consult with 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.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Negligible state costs.

          2)Local, nonreimbursable costs of an unknown amount to complete  
            infrastructure assessments.








                                                                  SB 632
                                                                  Page  2


           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale.   According to the author, there have been several  
            plans for goods movement infrastructure or for reducing goods  
            movement emissions, but those plans are now dated and,  
            generally, do not identify funding sources.  The author  
            contends this bill will help define the infrastructure and air  
            quality needs of the state's largest ports, as well as the  
            funding sources to pay for those needs.

           2)Background  .
           
             a)   California's Ports.   State law establishes 11 ports:   
               Humboldt Bay, Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland,  
               Redwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, San  
               Francisco, and Stockton.  The law allows each port to  
               establish a general plan and prescribe specifications for  
               improvements.  Ports are local government agencies governed  
               by port commissions that are responsible for developing,  
               maintaining, and overseeing the operation of shore side  
               facilities for the transfer of cargo between ships, trucks,  
               and railroads.  The ports are regulated by several state  
               and local government agencies, including the Business,  
               Transportation and Housing Agency, State Resources Agency,  
               Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State Air  
               Resources Board, and local air quality districts.
           
             b)   Port-related Air Pollution Is Costly  .  According to a  
               2006 report by ARB, pollution from state ports causes 2,400  
               premature deaths annually.  ARB recently estimated that  
               over the next 15 years, polluting activity from operations  
               at California's ports will have an aggregate health impact  
               equivalent to approximately $200 billion in present value  
               dollars.  The state risks losing federal transportation  
               funding for port areas that fail to meet federal clean air  
               standards.  ARB estimates the cost to reduce goods movement  
               emissions is between $6 billion and $10 billion.  

              c)   Bond Money for Goods Movement-Related Infrastructure  .   
               Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air  
               Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, authorizes  
               approximately $20 billion of general obligation bonds to  
               fund transportation projects to relieve congestion, improve  
               the movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance the  








                                                                  SB 632
                                                                  Page  3

               safety and security of the transportation system.  Of the  
               $20 billion, $1 billion is for the Air Resources Board for  
               emission reductions, not otherwise required by law or  
               regulation, from activities related to the movement of  
               freight along California's trade corridors.  An additional  
               $2 billion in Proposition 1B monies is dedicated to the  
               Trade Corridor Improvement Program for infrastructure  
               improvements along federally designated "Trade Corridors of  
               National Significance" in this state or along other  
               corridors within this state that have a high volume of  
               freight movement. 

           3)Supporters  include the Bay Area Air Quality Management  
            District and Breathe California, who argue that the bill will  
            provide better, more detailed funding on needed infrastructure  
            upgrades at California's largest ports, which will help  
            advance those projects and consequent air quality and  
            transportation improvements.

            There is no registered opposition to this bill.

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