BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  May 16, 2011

                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
                                Henry T. Perea, Chair

                   AB 204 (Halderman) - As Amended:  March 8, 2011

                                      VOTE ONLY

          Majority vote.  Tax levy.  Fiscal committee.

           SUBJECT  :  Sales and use taxes:  exemption:  biomass energy 
          production  

           SUMMARY  :  Establishes a partial sales and use tax (SUT) 
          exemption for equipment purchased by a "biomass energy facility" 
          for use in its biomass energy production in this state.  
          Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Defines a "biomass energy facility" as a facility that 
            produces energy for distribution using "biomass materials." 

          2)Defines "biomass materials" as any organic material not 
            derived from fossil fuels, including agricultural crops, 
            "agricultural wastes and residues," waste pallets, crates, 
            dunnage, manufacturing and construction wood wastes, 
            "landscape and right-of-way tree trimmings," mill residues 
            that result from milling lumber, rangeland maintenance 
            residues, biosolids, sludge derived from organic matter, and 
            wood and wood waste from timbering operations.  

          3)Defines "agricultural wastes and residues" to include animal 
            wastes, remains and tallow, food wastes, recycled cooking 
            oils, and pure vegetable oils.  

          4)Defines "landscape and right-of-way tree trimmings" to include 
            all solid waste materials that result from tree or vegetation 
            trimming or removal to establish or maintain a right-of-way on 
            public or private land for the provision of public utilities, 
            as defined, for fuel hazard reduction resulting in fire 
            protection and prevention, or for the public's recreational 
            use.  

          5)Provides that this exemption shall not apply to any tax 
            levied:








                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  2


             a)   By a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in 
               accordance with, either the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local SUT 
               Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law; or, 

             b)   Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 6051.2, 
               6051.5, 6201.2, and 6201.5, or pursuant to Section 35 of 
               Article XIII of the California Constitution.  

          6)Takes immediate effect as a tax levy, but only becomes 
            operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter 
            commencing more than 90 days after its effective date.    

           EXISTING LAW  imposes a:

          1)Sales tax on retailers for the privilege of selling tangible 
            personal property (TPP), absent a specific exemption.  The tax 
            is based upon the retailer's gross receipts from TPP sales in 
            this state.  

          2)Complimentary use tax on the storage, use, or other 
            consumption of TPP purchased out of state and brought into 
            California.  The use tax is imposed on the purchaser, and 
            unless the purchaser pays the use tax to an out-of-state 
            retailer registered to collect California's use tax, the 
            purchaser remains liable for the tax.  The use tax is set at 
            the same rate as the state's sales tax and must be remitted to 
            the State Board of Equalization (BOE).

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  The BOE estimates General Fund revenue losses of 
          $1.04 million in fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 and $2.08 million in 
          FY 2012-13.  

           COMMENTS  :

          1)The author has provided the following statement in support of 
            this bill:

               I introduced Assembly Bill 204 in an effort to encourage 
               private sector green job growth in California's renewable 
               energy sector.  Biomass energy is a smart investment 
               because it creates new jobs, sends less waste to landfills 
               and reduces the likelihood of fueling forest fires, all 
               while providing a renewable source of energy for our 
               growing population.  








                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  3


               Biomass is a reliable and steady source of energy, and 
               every effort should be made to incentivize its production 
               in our state.

               AB 204 is a modest tax exemption for those businesses that 
               would employ Californians and produce clean energy - two of 
               the state's most crucial goals.  California is ambitious on 
               both fronts and AB 204 is a step in the right direction.  

          2)BOE notes the following in its staff analysis of this measure: 
             

             a)   "Under existing law, as provided by SB 71 (Ch. 10, 
               Padilla, signed by the Governor on March 24, 2010 and 
               effective immediately), certain "projects" may be approved 
               for a state AND local sales and use tax exclusion by the 
               California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation 
               Financing Authority (CAEATFA).  SB 71 amended Public 
               Resources Code (PRC) Section 26003 and added PRC Section 
               26011.8 to include within the definition of "project" 
               equipment used to manufacture products that produce energy 
               from alternative sources such as solar, wind, and biomass.  
               SB 71 allows CAEATFA to authorize a sales and use tax 
               exclusion for purchases of tangible personal property 
               utilized for the design, manufacture, production, or 
               assembly of advanced transportation technologies or 
               alternative source products, components, or systems, which 
               includes renewable energy equipment, combined heat and 
               power equipment, and alternative transportation equipment 
               in California."  

             b)   "According to CAEATFA, because biomass facilities 
               manufacture an alternative source component (biomass), 
               these facilities may be eligible for the sales and use tax 
               exclusion under SB 71.  The equipment must be used more 
               than 75 percent for the manufacture of an alternative 
               source component (biomass material).  In addition, the 
               project must meet all the other criteria in SB 71, such as 
               creating new, permanent jobs in California.  According to 
               CAEATFA, there have been several projects approved for a SB 
               71 sales and use tax exclusion for new landfill gas power 
               facilities." 

             c)   "According to the California Biomass Energy Alliance 








                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  4

               �which] supports this bill, the existing biomass facilities 
               do not meet the criteria under SB 71 because they do not 
               create any new permanent jobs.  In addition, there are 
               currently no new biomass energy facilities being built in 
               California.  However, if a new biomass facility were to be 
               built, that facility's purchases of certain equipment would 
               be eligible for the SB 71 sales and use tax exclusion, as 
               long as the facility's project met the other criteria in SB 
               71."  

             d)   "Currently, most sales and use tax exemptions apply to 
               the total applicable sales and use tax.  However, there are 
               currently five partial exemptions in California law, where 
               only the state tax portion (6.25%: General Fund (6%) and 
               Fiscal Recovery Fund (0.25%)) of the state and local sales 
               and use tax rate is exempted.  These five partial tax 
               exemptions include:  (1) farm equipment and machinery, (2) 
               diesel fuel used for farming and food processing, (3) 
               teleproduction and postproduction equipment, (4) timber 
               harvesting equipment and machinery, and (5) racehorse 
               breeding stock.  These partial tax exemptions are difficult 
               for both retailers and the Board.  They complicate return 
               preparation and return processing.  And errors on returns 
               attributable to these partial exemptions occur frequently, 
               which result in additional return processing workload for 
               the Board."  

          3)Committee Staff Comments:
            
              a)   What is a "Tax Expenditure"?  :  Existing law provides 
               various credits, deductions, exclusions, and exemptions for 
               particular taxpayer groups.  United States Treasury 
               officials and some Congressional tax staff began arguing in 
               the late 1960's that these features of the tax law should 
               be referred to as "expenditures," since they are generally 
               enacted to accomplish some governmental purpose and there 
               is a determinable cost associated with each (in the form of 
               foregone revenues).  This bill would enact a tax 
               expenditure, in the form of a partial SUT exemption, 
               designed to encourage the production of biomass energy in 
               California.

              b)   How is a Tax Expenditure Different from a Direct 
               Expenditure? :  As the Department of Finance notes in its 
               annual Tax Expenditure Report, there are several key 








                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  5

               differences between tax expenditures and direct 
               expenditures.  First, tax expenditures are reviewed less 
               frequently than direct expenditures once they are put in 
               place.  This can offer taxpayers greater certainty, but it 
               can also result in tax expenditures remaining a part of the 
               tax code in perpetuity without demonstrating any public 
               benefit.  Second, there is generally no control over the 
               amount of revenue losses associated with any given tax 
               expenditure.  Finally, it should also be noted that, once 
               enacted, it generally takes a two-thirds vote to rescind an 
               existing tax expenditure.  This effectively results in a 
               "one-way ratchet" whereby tax expenditures can be conferred 
               by majority vote, but cannot be rescinded, irrespective of 
               their efficacy, without a supermajority vote.  

             c)   Biomass in California  :  According to the California 
               Energy Commission, biomass consists of organic residues 
               from plants and animals, which are obtained primarily from 
               harvesting and processing agricultural and forestry crops.  
               At the peak of the biomass industry, there were 66 
               direct-combustion biomass facilities in operation in the 
               state.  Today, there are roughly 30 such facilities with a 
               combined capacity of 640 megawatts.   

             d)   Who Would Benefit from this Exemption?  :  This bill 
               creates a partial SUT exemption for equipment purchased by 
               a "biomass energy facility" for use in its biomass energy 
               production in this state.  A biomass energy facility, in 
               turn, is defined as a facility that produces energy for 
               distribution using biomass materials.  Committee staff 
               suggests amending this bill to require that the qualifying 
               facility be  primarily  engaged in the activities specified.  
               The failure to include such language in the prior 
               Manufacturers' Investment Credit led to many taxpayer 
               disputes with BOE.
              
             e)   What Kind of "Equipment" Would Qualify for the 
               Exemption?  :  It is unclear what "equipment" would qualify 
               for the proposed exemption.  Would qualifying equipment be 
               limited to equipment used directly in the controlled 
               combustion of materials?  This bill's provisions are not 
               clear on this point.  For example, would equipment used 
               primarily in administration, management, or marketing 
               qualify for this exemption?  Would equipment used to clean 
               the floor of a biomass energy facility be exempt?  To 








                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  6

               effectively administer this tax expenditure program, BOE 
               needs clarification on the scope of the proposed exemption. 
                 

             f)   What Happens if the Exempt Equipment is Later used for 
               Non-Qualifying Purposes?  :  Under this bill, a biomass 
               energy facility could buy equipment that qualifies for the 
               exemption, use that equipment for a short period of time, 
               and then sell or transfer the equipment to another entity 
               (e.g., an affiliated out-of-state company).  Committee 
               staff suggests amending this bill to eliminate the SUT 
               exemption if the purchased property is removed from 
               California or is used in a manner not qualifying for the 
               exemption.  
              
             g)   Should this Bill be Amended to Provide a Sunset Date?  :  
               As currently drafted, this bill lacks a sunset date.  As 
               such, the SUT exemption would remain a permanent part of 
               the tax code absent a supermajority vote to repeal or 
               modify it.  Many within the business community argue that 
               sunset dates reduce the level of certainty needed for 
               long-term planning purposes.  Others, however, argue that 
               sunset dates provide the Legislature a much-needed 
               opportunity to review the efficacy of individual tax 
               expenditure programs in the future.  Committee staff 
               suggests that this bill be amended to provide an 
               appropriate sunset date.   
                
              h)   Related Legislation  :  Committee staff notes the 
               following related bills introduced in the 2009-10 
               Legislative Session: 

               i)     AB 1719 (Harkey) would have established a partial 
                 SUT exemption for specified business equipment used in 
                 either manufacturing or research and development.  AB 
                 1719 was held in this Committee.  

               ii)    AB 1812 (Silva) would have established a partial SUT 
                 exemption, operative January 1, 2011, for specified TPP 
                 used in manufacturing.  AB 1812 was held in this 
                 Committee.  

               iii)   AB 2280 (Miller) would have established a complete 
                 SUT exemption for equipment a manufacturer purchases for 
                 use in its manufacturing business in this state.  AB 2280 








                                                                  AB 204
                                                                  Page  7

                 was held in this Committee.  

               iv)    AB 2525 (Blumenfield) would have established a SUT 
                 exemption for TPP used in the manufacturing process of 
                 clean energy technology, as specified.  AB 2525's hearing 
                 was cancelled at the request of the author.   
                
              i)   Suggested Technical Amendment  :  On page 2, line 3, 
               Committee staff suggests replacing the word "exempt" with 
               the word "exempted."  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          None on file 

           Opposition 
           
          None on file
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  M. David Ruff / REV. & TAX. / (916) 
          319-2098