BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1095
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1095 (Bill Berryhill) - As Amended: March 31, 2011
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill creates within the Air Resources Board (ARB) a hearing
board, modeled on such boards created by statute at the local
air district level, to hear disputes over ARB regulatory action.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown annual costs to ARB for legal and administrative work
for the hearing board to hear disputes. It is difficult to
predict the amount of these costs because they will depend
upon (a) the number of people who choose to appeal decisions
to the hearing board and (b) the complexity of the cases
subjected to hearing.
Potential costs, however, can be illustrated by assuming 30%
of ARB's roughly 2,000 annual enforcement cases are subject to
the hearing board, and by further assuming that each of those
cases represents the average amount of work for the hearing
board process and that the process is similar to what ARB
envisioned for the alternative dispute resolution processes
proposed in legislation last year. ARB estimates an average
hearing board appeal will involve six days of attorney
activity and nine days of work for an Office of Administrative
Hearings administrative law judge, which ARB also will need to
cover. Under such a scenario, annual ARB costs would total
approximately $2.7 million in attorney costs and approximately
$8 million in administrative law judge costs (APCF).
2)Fee revenue, generated from payments made by those seeking to
appeal ARB decisions to the hearing board, of an unknown
amount but sufficient to cover ARB's hearing board costs.
AB 1095
Page 2
(APCF.)
3)Potential annual savings to ARB of an unknown amount, but
possibly in the millions of dollars and maybe in excess of the
costs generated by this bill, resulting from decreased
litigation costs, which presumes those who appeal to the
hearing board are generally satisfied with the decision of the
hearing board. (APCF).
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends ARB's executive officer and
staff make significant enforcement decisions that are not
subject to review, leaving aggrieved parties with no recourse
other than costly litigation. The author notes that hearing
boards operate at the local air district level. He adds that
operating one within ARB will provide a fair, efficient, and
predictable forum available to all regulated parties, will
reduce money and time spent in litigation, and will increase
the transparency of the appeal process.
2)Background . ARB's primary duties are controlling motor
vehicle emissions, coordinating activities of air districts
for the purposes of the federal Clean Air Act, and
implementing the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB
32).
ARB has a process and resources for resolving disputes over
enforcement of ARB rules and regulations. This process
includes a public rulemaking process, with regulations
reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law before
implementation. Parties subject to ARB regulations may seek
administrative relief from the executive officer, the board,
or judicial review.
In addition, federal law requires ARB to have an Ombudsman
Office to assist small and large businesses, trade
associations, and individual community members regarding any
aspect of the ARB regulatory process. The Ombudsman's mission
includes education on California's air quality management
system, guidance on air quality rules and regulations,
assisting small businesses in compliance with those
regulations, and providing help toward solutions when there is
an air quality compliance problem. The Ombudsman reports
directly to the ARB Chair.
AB 1095
Page 3
Statute requires each air district to appoint a five-member
hearing board, comprised of a lawyer, an engineer, and a
medical professional, for the purpose of hearing applications
for variances from district rules. Districts are authorized
to collect fees from applicants to cover the costs of the
hearing board process.
3)Related Legislation . Last year, this author introduced AB
2469, which would have established a dispute resolution
process for a person who violates any ARB rule or regulation.
The bill was held by this committee.
4)Support. This bill is supported by the California Council for
Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) (sponsor), and a
long list of industry groups whose members are regulated by
ARB.
5)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081