BILL ANALYSIS
SB 632
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 632 (Alan Lowenthal)
As Amended April 30, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :30-4
TRANSPORTATION 12-1 APPROPRIATIONS 11-3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Eng, Jeffries, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Blumenfield, Monning, | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, |
| |Conway, Furutani, | |Fuentes, Hall, |
| |Galgiani, | |John A. Perez, Skinner, |
| |Bill Berryhill, Bonnie | |Audra Strickland, Torlakson |
| |Lowenthal, Niello, John | | |
| |A. Perez, Torlakson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+----------------------------|
|Nays:|Miller |Nays:|Nielsen, Harkey, Miller |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and
Oakland, by July 1, 2010, to assess their infrastructure and air
quality improvement needs. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes various findings and declarations relative to the need
of infrastructure improvements and air quality reduction
measures for the state's major ports.
2)Requires the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles (San Pedro
Ports), and the port of Oakland (Oakland) to assess
infrastructure and air quality improvement needs beginning
January 1, 2010.
3)Requires the San Pedro ports to consult with the Southern
California Association of Governments, and Oakland to consult
with 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 sources or
possible funding sources, and estimated project timeliness for
completion.
SB 632
Page 2
4)Requires the San Pedro ports to consult with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (South Coast), and Oakland to
consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), 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
sources or possible funding sources, and estimated project
timelines for completion.
5)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.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes 11 ports in the state: Humboldt Bay, Hueneme,
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Stockton. The law
allows each port to lay out, plan, and establish a general
plan and port system improvements and prescribe the
specifications for such improvements.
2)Authorizes the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
coordinate statewide efforts to attain and maintain ambient
air quality standards and specifies its powers. Establishes
South Coast and BAAQMD as the regional air quality management
districts in their respective areas of the state.
3)Authorizes, through the enactment of Proposition 1B, the
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port
Security Bond Act of 2006, as approved by the statewide voters
in November 2006, the state to sell 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 safety and security of the
transportation system. Of the $20 billion, allocates $1
billion to ARB for emission reductions, not otherwise required
by law or regulation, from activities related to the movement
of freight along California's trade corridors (commencing at
the state's airports, seaports and land ports of entry). Also
Proposition 1B includes $2 billion for infrastructure
improvements along goods movement corridors.
SB 632
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Accordingly to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)Negligible state costs.
2)Local, nonreimbursable costs of an unknown amount to complete
infrastructure assessments.
COMMENTS : 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
intermodal transfer of cargo between ships, trucks, and
railroads. In some cases, certain ports have jurisdiction over
affiliated airports, build and maintain terminals for the
passenger cruise ship industry, or manage marinas and other
public facilities. Many industrial, manufacturing, and other
businesses locate their facilities near ports to take advantage
of the low-cost inbound transportation of raw materials and
cost-efficient outbound shipments of products for both domestic
and foreign markets.
As public entities, and due to their geographical location,
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, BAAQMD, and South Coast,
among others.
According to a 2006 report by ARB, pollution from our state's
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.
As a disproportionate number of communities impacted by port
pollution are low-income communities of color, the state
currently shoulders much of these port-caused health costs. By
2020, ports and freight transport operations will be the largest
source of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions in the state, producing more diesel PM than all
passenger vehicles, off-road equipment and stationary sources
combined. On a related note, Southern California risks losing
SB 632
Page 4
$12.1 billion in federal highway funds if federal Clean Air Act
standards are not met. So far, the basin has failed to meet
national standards for ozone or for particulate emissions.
Arguments in Support of this Bill:
1)According to the author's office, "There have been several
plans either for goods movement infrastructure or for reducing
goods movement emissions, however those plans are several
years old and most do not identify where funds will come from
to build goods movement infrastructure or to reduce emissions
from goods movement in California. The ARB Emission Reduction
Plan estimates the cost to reduce goods movement emissions
between $6 billion and $10 billion. Additionally the
Governor's Goods Movement Action Plan estimates goods movement
infrastructure costs to exceed $20 billion over the next
decade." This bill seeks to find out how the San Pedro ports
and the Port of Oakland will fund their improvements along
with providing estimated timelines for implementation of the
action measures.
2)The BAAQMD, also writing in support of the bill, indicates
that they "Strongly believe that the Port of Oakland must do
more to cut emissions and become a more responsible neighbor.
In comparison to the robust emissions reduction programs in
place in Long Beach and Los Angeles, Oakland is lagging far
behind. We believe SB 632 will help the Port of Oakland move
forward with a better planning process."
Arguments Against this Bill:
1)Some could argue that the ports are generally governed by
their respective local governmental entities and, accordingly,
state oversight and intervention is not necessary and usurps
local control and decisionmaking.
2)The clean air plans adopted by the ports are not static
documents but are rather "living" plans and subject to
constant change. This is evident with the recent adoption of
the dirty trucks restriction as imposed by Oakland.
3)The Proposition 1B trade corridor improvement program and
goods movement emission reduction programs have identified
needs beyond available funding. Furthermore, according to
the author's office, "The Governor's Goods Movement Action
SB 632
Page 5
Plan estimates goods movement infrastructure costs to exceed
$20 billion over the next decade." Should these costs be
shouldered by the state or by the three ports as specified in
this bill, especially when one considers that some of the
infrastructure improvements are located beyond the ports'
jurisdictional areas?
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0001813