BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1328
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1328 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 16, 2010
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to consider the
following when adopting or amending regulations to reduce motor
vehicle cabin temperature:
1)Reducing air-conditioning use when motor vehicles are either
parked or moving.
2)Potential conflicts between, and relative benefits of, vehicle
temperature requirements and the technologies that provide
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
3)Flexibility to achieve the maximum possible motor vehicle GHG
emissions reduction.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time costs to ARB, potentially in excess of $150,000
(equivalent to one position), to the extent ARB chooses to
consider adoption of regulation to reduce motor vehicle cabin
temperature, which would entail additional analysis per this
bill. (Air Pollution Control Fund)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends this bill provides policy
direction to ARB so that, when the board revisits
consideration of "cool car" regulation, it will consider a
broad range of regulatory options that allow manufacturers
flexibility in achieving GHG reduction goals.
SB 1328
Page 2
2)Background . 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. In
keeping with AB 32, ARB has adopted or proposed a number of
regulations to achieve the state's GHG reduction goals.
In June 2009, ARB adopted the Cool Cars Regulation under its
AB 32 authority. The regulation would have required passenger
vehicle manufacturers to reduce the interior temperature of
parked vehicles, which would reduce GHG emissions by reducing
the need to fuel air conditioner use. Temperature reductions
would have been achieved mainly through the use of window
coatings. However, concern over the coatings' effect on
communications devices led ARB to abandon implementation. ARB
is likely to consider regulation with the same goal as Cool
Cars in the near future.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081